The Instigator
cool_rad_b
Con (against)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
Volkov
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points

arranged marriages should be outlawed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 11 votes the winner is...
Volkov
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 18,379 times Debate No: 8866
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (11)

 

cool_rad_b

Con

I want the pro to first present his/her argument !!!!!
Volkov

Pro

I thank my opponent for creating this debate, and allowing me the opportunity to make my argument first.

For the purposes of this debate, I will put forward two definitions pertaining to the resolution.

1) Arranged marriages: marriage arranged by parents: a marriage in which the parents choose a bride or bridegroom for their son or daughter (http://encarta.msn.com...)

2) Outlawed: ban something; to make something illegal (http://encarta.msn.com...)

For the purposes of this debate, the legal framework to discuss this matter in will be the laws of the United States of America. As it currently stands, there is no law on the books in the United States that makes arranged marriages illegal. I will be arguing that there should be.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Arranged marriages are a tradition that is customary, even the norm, in many parts of the world. In Pakistan and India, an arranged marriage is considered to be one of the most common practices. But, the United States itself has had a long and studied history of arranged marriages, dating back to the 16th and 17th Centuries to the modern era. Most of those arranged marriages were in fact marriages within the family - in order to retain the purity of some family bloodlines, some had to inbreed in order to survive [1]. As such, arranged marriages were seen as a way to promote that inbreeding.

Since the installation of laws against incest relations [2], this kind of arranged marriage has been on the rapid decline. But recently, there has been a small spike of arranged marriages within the United States [3], with critics arguing that arranged marriages are in fact one of the most effective ways to find a partner for life - not necessarily to love or cherish, but one that can provide for your family and keep honour, discipline and tradition [4].

But regardless of the effects or purpose of arranged marriages, I am going to argue that they should not be recognized as a legal form of matrimony, and that in fact, forcing children into arranged marriages should be considered a criminal offense, punishable under law.

I will base my argument on three amendments within the United States Constitution, and will possibly extend the use of the document in later arguments.

Arranged marriages violates several amendments of the United States Constitution; specifically:

i) The Thirteenth Amendment; Slavery Abolished. (http://www.usconstitution.net...)

Arranged marriages constitute a form of slavery, as a child is forced by their parents to marry his or her arranged partner. The child has no choice in the matter, and refusal of the marriage can be punishable by death [5].

ii) The First Amendment; Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression (http://www.usconstitution.net...)

Arranged marriages deny participants freedom of religion ('religion' here pertaining to belief, will) as neither participant, unless otherwise sanctioned by the matchmakers, may not refuse the marriage.

iii) The Fourth Amendment; Search and Seizure (http://www.usconstitution.net...)

Arranged marriages violate a person's right not to have their persons, papers and effects seized unlawfully. Arranged marriages, unless otherwise sanctioned by the matchmakers, do not allow an individual his or her right not to be imprisoned without lawful warrant under the law. Arranged marriage is indeed a prison, as participants are not allowed to leave the marriage on fear of punishment or death.

Because arranged marriage violates these three amendments of the Constitution, as well as several others, it should therefore be a banned practice within the United States of America. The resolution if affirmed.

Arranged marriage has no place within our modern society. Respecting the belief of certain groups and cultures is one thing, but allowing or neglecting the use unlawful force as a means to an end is quite another. Arranged marriages violate fundamental human rights that the United States Constitution specifically outlines, and the legalization of such a practice, or even the neglect of it, constitutes a violation of the country's founding tenets.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.

1. http://www.associatedcontent.com...
2. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
3. http://www.alternet.org...
4. http://www.foxnews.com...
5. http://www.helium.com...
Debate Round No. 1
cool_rad_b

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate. I also would regretfully like to inform him that I would not be able to keep the debate confined to the United States of America as it is a general topic and moreover I am an Indian resident and do not know much about the laws of USA . Therefore i 'll speak on this topic in general terms .
I strongly believe that arranged marriages should not be outlawed . The biggest debate surrounding arranged marriages is that arranged marriages take no consideration of the person's will to marry but are a kind of imprisonment or punishment that a child is forced into even slavery as said by my opponent . But this is just what arranged marriages are not ."It should not be confused with the phenomenon of forced marriage".(wikipedia.org) An arranged is a marriage in which parents chose the bride or bridegroom but the prior consent of the child is taken into consideration generally. By the new-age definition, an arranged marriage is just a 'set-up'. Parents introduce their children to each other, who meet and may even date for some time(http://www.rediff.com...) Arranged marriages are just a way in which both parents and the child get a chance in deciding the groom rather than love marriages where a parent's wish has no concern . I can tell all this because living in India has given me a first hand experience and I have attended a lot arranged marriages. In the modern day arranged marriages parents select the groom m/ bridegroom and invite the relatives along with the person to their place . Generally a boy goes to see the girl . Then both the boy and girl are given some time to interact about 2 hours or so and if they both agree to marriage and say yes then only they are married .So in a way this allows the consent of both the families as well as kid.
I know it is difficult to know a person in an hour and decide whether you want to spend the rest of your life with him but it is not that just everyone gets lucky in love !!!! A lot of people exist in the world ,specially in India who have not even dated till they are 18 and don't fall in love later on even ! Arranged marriage as an option they can fall back on if they are unable or unwilling to spend the time and effort necessary to find spouses on their own. In such cases, the parents become welcome partners in a hunt for marital bliss. Further, in several cultures, the last duty of a parent to his or her son or daughter is to see that he or she passes through the marital rites. So what is wrong if two people who have found no new to love decide to mutually stay in relationship and see if the marriage can work out? . Also most love marriages turn out to be cases of intense passionate moments or infatuation leading to a very shaky life within 5 years of marriage.
This is proved by the fact that divorce rates in USA,where most of the marriages are love , are about 50% compared to divorce rates in India , where most of the marriages are arranged ,which are a mere 1.1 % .
(http://www.divorcerate.org...)
Modern arranged marriages, in contrast to classical ones, are not based on proscriptions but on pragmatic considerations. Often, parents can contribute to the offspring's life by utilizing the benefits of experience to choose the right mate for him/her. The common misconception is that the concept of arranged marriages imply traditional male-female duties. Modern western societies have also started practising arranged marriages in a cosmopolitan setting .(wikipedia.org) . Therefore if we think of outlawing such marriages we are restricting the right of the people to speak freely !! Moreover if something proves to be a blessing in disguise you should be happy about it and not criticise it !
Volkov

Pro

My opponent is excused for lack of knowledge on the laws of the United States, and instead I will argue it on the bases of the laws set forth by the United Nations, of which India is a member. [1]

Unfortunately though, my opponent has seemed to disregard the resolution of this debate, which states that "arranged marriages should be outlawed." I gave my definitions in the first round of debating, and by failing to mention any disputes with the definitions I provided, my opponent agreed to them.

Despite this, my opponent has instead decided to argue her case on the basis of whether or not arranged marriages are socially viable and successful - not on the basis of their legality. This makes much of my opponent's argument pointless, as she has not defended her position.

There was only one part of her argument that I can see was relevant, and I will refute it.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

My opponent states that ".... An arranged is a marriage in which parents chose the bride or bridegroom but the prior consent of the child is taken into consideration generally. By the new-age definition, an arranged marriage is just a 'set-up'."

Despite my opponent's own admission that not all arranged marriages take in the consent of the child (the use of the word "generally" is proof of this), and that therefore the practice has been known to be forced upon the child, my opponent fails to take into account the legal status of the child as an individual protected under law. "Set-up" or not, the act violates the laws of the land.

Arranged marriage violates at least two sections of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). (http://www.un.org...)

Article 12 of the UDHR states that "... No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence...". This means that no person under law may be subjected to interference with their private life. [2] This law specifically includes children as well, as the United Nations specifically notes that the articles set forth in UDHR apply to all humans [3].

Arranged marriages specifically violate Article 12, as children have their private life interfered with during the set up of an arranged marriage.

As well, in relation to my opponent's contention that "... the prior consent of the child is taken into consideration," children are not capable of making informed, rational decisions until much later in life, and therefore any "consent" given while they under under the Age of Majority [4] is void.

Article 20 of the UDHR also states that "... (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association." This means that no person shall be compelled, coerced or driven to associate with a certain group or connection. [5]

Association is defined as "... A mental connection or relation between thoughts, feelings, ideas, or sensations." [6]
Marriage is defined as "... A close union." [7]
Union is defined as "... Agreement or harmony resulting from the uniting of individuals; concord." [8]

Therefore, I submit, that arranged marriages, due to their status as a "union" and therefore an "association," are a violation of Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They violate the law due to their status as coerced association without consent.

Because of these two violates of the UDHR, and India's signatory to the United Nations, it is clear that arranged marriages should be outlawed. The resolution is affirmed.

1. http://www.un.int...
2. http://www.un.org...
3. http://www.un.org...
4. http://canlii.com... - Used as an example of the "Age of Majority"
5. http://www.un.org...
6. http://www.answers.com...
7. http://www.answers.com...
8. http://www.answers.com...
Debate Round No. 2
cool_rad_b

Con

cool_rad_b forfeited this round.
Volkov

Pro

Shame.

All my arguments are extended. Arranged marriages violate the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, two legally binding documents. Therefore, arranged marriages should be an outlawed practice.

Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Interesting debate, unfortunate outcome.

C: Pro - Penalty for forfeit.
S/G: Pro - Con's presentation was a bit jumbled and difficult to follow.
A: Pro - I was eager to read Con' argument, especially considering his position is contrary to popular opinion. Sadly, his points were disappointing.
S: Pro
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Conduct: Pro - Con forfeited.
S/G: Pro
Arguments: Clearly, Pro - Con went off on a couple of irrelevant tangents.
Sources: Pro
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
RFD:

C: PRO, as Con forfeited the last round.
S&G: PRO. I found Con's overusage of exclamation points to be distracting and unnecessary.
A: PRO. Con forfeited a round and the arguments made in his only real round were less than spectacular.
S: PRO, for obvious reasons.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Interesting, minus the forfeit.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by wonderwoman 7 years ago
wonderwoman
cool_rad_bVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
cool_rad_bVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
cool_rad_bVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
cool_rad_bVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
cool_rad_bVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by alwaz4dam 7 years ago
alwaz4dam
cool_rad_bVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by comoncents 7 years ago
comoncents
cool_rad_bVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by thisoneguy 7 years ago
thisoneguy
cool_rad_bVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
cool_rad_bVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
cool_rad_bVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07