Debate Tournament - USF Sam vs. Zirconaz

[retro]

USF Sam vs. Zirconaz

Arranged and/or Forced Marriages

Arranged marriages make up vastly the higher percentage in human history but have, largely in the last century, become unusual and morally questioned in the Western world. Where overt arranged marriages still occur in Europe and the Americas it is usually within immigrant communities. Some people that have been involved in arraigned marriages learned to love their spouse, and have led very happy and fulfilling lives, while others have suffered nothing but pain and suffering.

Should arraigned and/or forced marriages be outlawed?

There will be three rounds, the first two will be limited to 350 words each, and the third round will allow 400 words. There will be no editing of your post allowed, unless it is approved by me, and only before your opponent has their chance to respond. You will have 24 hours from the conclusion of each post in order to post your response.

I would request that nobody, other than the participants, post in this thread until the conclusion of the debate.

I flipped a coin to determine who would lead off the debate.

Sam, you may lead off...

 

[USF Sam]

TOPIC: Should arranged and/or forced marriages be outlawed?

A 9-year-old sits huddled on a bed, terrified and confused. The reason: an hour ago she was married to a 50-year-old man that her parents gave her to. She was dragged off and forced to undergo a ceremony she did not understand. In the next hour, she will have sex for the first time. She has no right to refuse or even question.

This is referred to as “forced marriage”- where one or both of the parties have no say in the matter. Presumably, we can all agree that this is reprehensible and should be illegal.

The topic still in question is therefore “arranged marriage”- where both sides willingly give their consent to allow another party to determine whom would be a good match for them.

I say NO- ARRANGED MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL.

The term has been westernized to conjure images like the one I described above, but that is not the case. In reality, the most common type is an “introductory only” arrangement, where the third party introduces the couple and how things progress from there is up to the couple. This is the standard in India, Pakistan and South America. In fact, according to this definition, MATCH.COM and eHARMONY.com can be considered as a marriage brokers.

In many cases it is the children themselves who, tired of the trials and tribulations of the dating scene, will turn to their parents or a match maker for help in selecting their mates.

The Western problem with this is the concept of “love” as defined by Western eyes and hearts. However, how is bumping into somebody at a Starbucks or at a bar any better than allowing somebody that knows you to guide you? The US divorce rate is over 50%... damning evidence the “love at first sight” process is flawed.

To summarize:

Forced Marriage: Declared a war crime by the UN in 2005 when the Special Court for Sierra Leone recognized that it “constitutes an inhumane act”.

Arranged Marriage: A cornerstone for cultures throughout the history of the world.

 

[retro]

bump for Zirc's response

 

[freakofnature]

I think marriage should be done away with altogether. It's becoming more and more common for people to be in long term relationships and even raise children without ever getting married. Divorce rates also continue to climb. Why bother getting married (which is intended to be permanent) if you're just going to break that commitment anyway? Marriage today has become a sham. We don't need it anymore.

 

[USF Sam]

The topic is: Should arranged and/or forced marriages be outlawed?

I stated my position as “Forced marriages are reprehensible and have been declared a war crime by the UN. Arranged marriages, on the other hand, should not and cannot be outlawed. They have been the bedrock of cultures since the dawn of man and are practiced to one degree or other the world over, to include here in the US with sites like Match.com and eHarmony.com”

Z did not state a position one way or another on arranged and/or forced marriage. Instead, she damned the whole institution of marriage as a whole, suggesting that it is a worthless anachronism and needed to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

True, it was tempting to follow Z off the beaten path and get into a discussion about why marriage is still a viable institution. A debate about how marriage is first and foremost a legal and financial relationship, how it provides the ability for property to be handed not only from one generation to the next, but across familial lines, how it provides a stability for children and how it allows two people to be seen as a single entity for purposes of insurance, debt and government assistance would be entertaining.

However, all of that would have been counter to the topic proposed by Retro: Should arranged and/or forced marriages be outlawed?

I have stated my position.

Zirc, the floor is open for yours.

 

[retro]

Off to you Zirc

 

[freakofnature]

How would my arguement be counter to the original topic? Last time I checked, forced/arranged marriages were included under marriages in general. I stated my position on that. If I'm against marriage in general then obviously I have no use for forced or arranged marriages either.

Children should not be getting married and I think adults are perfectly capable of making that decision for themselves. They don't need their parents or other elder telling them what to do. If they can't make that decision on their own then perhaps they shouldn't get married at all. The world is changing. Arranged marriages are passe.

 

[USF Sam]

The topic is: Should arranged and/or forced marriages be outlawed?

While it would be interesting to debate the topic "Is marriage an outdated and anachronistic concept that should be done away with in the modern world?", the point remains that this is not the topic in question.

The point of Retro's topic was to debate the ethical, legal and moral issues associated with arranged and/or forced marriage. I believe that everybody, including the UN, agrees that forced marriage is a reprehensible and degrading human rights violation of the first order. Therefore, the debate hinges on the acceptability of arranged marriages.

While it is true that your statement "Marriage should be done away with altogether" does tacitly include the concept of arranged marriages, it does not specify why this should be the case. Your argument is akin to coming into a discussion on the prohibition of handgun sales and stating "All weapons should be banned." While technically addressing handguns, the generalization about weapons does not address why this particular type of weapon is a bad thing.

The legitimacy of marriage as an ongoing institution is not the central point of contention- but rather if arranged marriages should be made illegal.

In my opinion, you have not specifically addressed the topic under debate and therefore my original position remains unchanged.

I relinquish the floor for Zirc's final statement.

 

[freakofnature]

Did you not read this?

Children should not be getting married and I think adults are perfectly capable of making that decision for themselves. They don't need their parents or other elder telling them what to do. If they can't make that decision on their own then perhaps they shouldn't get married at all. The world is changing. Arranged marriages are passe.

I can understand things getting lost in a long post but I made two short points with that paragraph specifically addressing the topic at hand. So please do not tell me that I haven't.

Since you insist on talking circles around my supposed lack of arguement instead of responding to what I said, the only thing I can do is reiterate my position on the matter. Arranged/forced marriages should be left to the history books. There is no place for them in modern society.

 

[retro]

this debate is now completed...

Please send a PM to me in order to vote for your chosen participant. I ask that you give a reason for your choice, and not just because you agree with the stance they were defending. Please base your decision on the merits of the debate itself.

Please do not post in this thread until voting is completed. I'm going to leave voting up until Sunday night at 8pm Pacific.