Debatepedia launches Global Climate Change Debate Series with UN Foundation's The People Speak. See press release.
Debate:Arranged Marriages
From Debatepedia
|
[  ][  ][  ][  ][  ]Should arranged marriages be outlawed? |
YOU can become an editor of this article. Debatepedia is a wiki encyclopedia of pros and cons that anyone can edit! What's a wiki? How to edit.
Editing tasks in this article that you can do:
- Pro and con articles on this debate topic need to be researched and presented in the "pro/con resources" section (bottom).
- Arguments and quotations should be drawn from these pro and con articles and framed in this article and in specific argument pages that you can create.
- Arguments need to be separated and isolated and then organized into sub-debate sections so that arguments and counter-arguments align.
- You can add more editing tasks here, delete completed ones, and talk about tasks on the discussion page. See other editing tasks on Debatepedia here
|
[ ]Background and Context of Debate: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. This creates further complications in discussing the issue because it not only becomes caught up in discussions of racism and ethnic rights, but also in the loaded debate on immigration. In 2000, for example, Britain granted 21 300 Entry Clearances for the spouses of British Asians; a large proportion were the product of marriages which were in some measure arranged. The immigration debate in relation to arranged marriage is not essential to the question but cannot be left out because the discussion of arranged marriage is no longer one that can be addressed in the abstract without considering its effects in marking out different communities and maintaining their cultural integrity. In some senses we can see the entire model of multiculturalism in the developed world reflected in this discussion of whether substantially different practices which maintain an ethnically individual community, drawing heavily on outside influences and immigration should be allowed. It is vital to remember, however, that arranged marriage is not some kind of ‘us and them’ immigration issue. It occurs both in religious communities and social groups within Western countries and the debate must reflect them as well. In fact, drawing a distinction between the types of influence that do and do not constitute arrangement is one of the most difficult in this debate. |
|
[ ][  ][  ][  ][  ]Marriage stability:Can arranged marriages make more successful marriages? | |
|
[  ][ ]Yes
|
[ ][ ]No
|
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][  ]Quality of marriage: Is there real love existing in arranged marriages? | |
|
[ ][ ]YesArranging marriages is an insult to the very nature of marriage, which should be about creating a loving and lasting partnership and family. It reduces a central part of what is fundamentally a religious ceremony (and every religion, including Islam, guarantees choice) to a commercial transaction and therefore undermines family values. This is even more an issue where people come into a country where marriage is seen as a central value that should be free, where it is a specific challenge to any moral code. |
[ ][ ]NoArranged marriages are very much ‘real’ marriages. Vastly more marriages than not in human history would fall under any sensible definition of arrangement. More than that, an unusually small number of arranged marriages actually end in divorce. Maybe we should look harder at whether Pop stars marriages constitute ‘real’ marriages if we are about to make that distinction. More seriously, millions of people marry for the ‘wrong’ reasons: financial security, desire for children, parental pressure and lack of choice among potential partners. It is pure romanticism to claim that marriages must be love matches or they should be stopped. This only serves to illustrate that it is impossible to make any sensible division between what is and isn’t an arranged marriage and therefore quixotic to attempt a ban.
|
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]Human rights: Does arranged marriage inhibit individuals' freedom and independence? | |
|
[ ][ ]YesTo allow arranged marriages leads to unacceptable pressure on those involved. They are often reliant on the parents who wish them to take part in arranged marriages for their futures as well as their current welfare. Moreover, the line between what constitutes an arranged and what constitutes a forced marriage is so hazy it can’t be policed, as is the line between legitimate and illegitimate influence. To protect from the latter we must stop the former. The law can help children who are often seeking bargaining chips to help them evade the pressure to marry from their family and community. |
[ ][ ]NoArranged marriages do involve choice. The difference is merely that whole families are involved together in both considering the best options and in helping to achieve what is wanted. This is particularly fitting in a social system which places high value on the way in which the extended family work together, and ensures that there is family support and shared expectations which contribute to the longevity of the marriage. Many of what we would call arranged marriages are actually either parents just introducing their children to potential partners, or effecting the negotiations necessary for marriage after their children have already chosen a partner. Most importantly, it is totally illogical for the government to intervene to stop people having the marriages that they and their family have chosen in the name of freedom of choice. This is exactly why the distinction between arranged and forced marriages is so important in providing protection for those who really need it without authoritarianism creeping in. |
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]Family violence: Does arranged marriage result in more abuse and marital violence? | |
|
[ ][ ]Yes
|
[ ][ ]NoArranged marriages in Europe and North America have idiosyncratically low levels of abuse and marital violence. The institution of marriage always creates interdependence and therefore scope for abuse and danger and the police and outsiders always find it more difficult to intervene where violence is within a marriage. This is a criticism of marriage per se, and not arrangement, and we can’t ban marriage. The vulnerability of those without language skills is an accepted fact of immigration policy, again it applies to all immigration and not to arranged marriages. Finally, most marriage organisers are actually women, as in the ‘Auntie’ system in India. They gain prestige and authority through their role. This doesn’t seem to oppress women. What you are really saying is that Islamic societies are patriarchal and that Muslims have arranged marriages. The latter does not in any sense cause the former. They are discrete social facts.
|
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]Community integration: Does arranged marriage trap the community integration? | |
|
[ ][ ]YesThe practice of arranged marriage separates communities, helping to stop integration and encourage distrust between communities. This applies largely where it occurs among immigrant populations and helps to maintain a language barrier and an associated cultural ghettoisation. This doesn’t just create a group of people who can feel trapped between two cultures and unsure of whether they have a place in their host society, and a poverty trap associated with the language barrier that creates further segregation. It also helps to foster distrust in the wider community by holding to such a radically alien value, particularly where it is opposed to our notion of equal rights. |
[ ][ ]NoIt is not just groups practising arranged marriage who maintain cohesive communities. Afro-Caribbean and Jewish people in Western Europe both maintain a distinct cultural life while taking part fully in the life of this country. In fact their cultural contributions are one of the most valuable additions to the societies in which they live. The basis of multiculturalism is to understand the social and even economic value that can accrue from having people with different perspectives and traditions living together. Furthermore, in the second and third generations of immigrant families from the subcontinent we can already see barriers breaking down so that there is greater understanding and cross-fertilisation of the ideas these immigrant communities have brought. Cultural ghettoisation does not stem from the practice of arranged marriage, but from the history of immigration and boundaries between older communities and new immigrants. Class, race, language, and often the prevailing cultural norms and ruling practices of the older community are also to blame. For example, marriage between classes, between whites and non-whites, and even between, for instance, the British, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh, were problematic issues long before immigration. Colonial attitudes were highly unsupportive of marriages between the ruling white class and the darker-skinned colonized people. Early immigration into Canada included fears from the wider white community who preferred (and sometimes violently) that the immigrant South Asians, for instance, lived amongst themselves. |
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]Cultural freedom: Does arranged marriage breach the principle of cultural freedom? | |
|
[ ][ ]YesArranged marriage is not a true ‘cultural value’ that is in some sense inviolate. Every major religion including Islam guarantees the legitimacy of freedom of choice in marriage. Further, the extent to which this is custom is a product of a patriarchal culture that oppresses women and an element of that culture which maintains the imbalance of power between the genders. Although we cannot intervene in countries that hold to such a value system, we can stop such a system being imported. True multiculturalism itself relies on some basic shared value of commitment to a tolerant and fair society. |
[ ][ ]NoBoth young and old people affirm the fact that arranged marriage is a cultural tradition and any ethnographic data confirms it, not to mention the frequency of arrangement throughout the world. As we have pointed out there is no conflict between arrangement and a guarantee of free choice, the two are entirely consistent. Who is going to stand up and tell ethnic minorities that they don’t know whether they want arranged marriages and whether or not it really is part of their culture? It is just ethnocentrism writ large. Furthermore, how can we possibly insist that immigrants respect our virtues of ‘toleration’ if that amounts to denying them cultural freedom? The matter may be of cultural freedom or multicultural freedom. Even within any ethnic community there is variety and difference. It is misleading to treat all arranged marriages as one homogeneous system. Although cross-cultural elements are a part of the debate, this is more than the West versus the East, old ways versus new ways, or patriarchal culture dominating women. A part of the difficulty in understanding the variety of arranged marriages stems from the fact that many western cultures had arranged marriages or types of arranged marriages that were based on finance and patriarchy. This does not mean all arranged marriage systems function in such a manner. Rather, such a viewpoint may be a case of observer bias, where western critiques only see arranged marriages through their own history. |
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]Illegal immigration: Does arranged marriage boost illegal immigration? | |
|
[ ][ ]YesArranged marriage has a value in use for illegal immigration. It is unable to properly examine most overtly arranged marriages because of the danger of being seen as culturally insensitive. Where arranged marriage is truly traditional and not motivated at least in part by immigration it is equally traditional that brides leave home to go to their husband’s house. You don’t see many European or American Asians leaving their home to go and live in their husband’s home country. |
[ ][ ]NoWe have made pathetically small progress in stamping out mail order brides which just goes to show how completely unenforceable a much more complex system of regulation over arranged marriages would be. More important to remember is that these marriages last in exceptionally high numbers beyond the time required to receive a passport so they would be legitimate even in countries where marriages which are for the primary purpose of immigration are barred. Finally, it is totally legitimate that husbands and wives should be able to choose the country where they have the best chances of making a good life to set up their homes, and this only serves to prove why brides from the third world might make the free choice to marry. The cause of illegal immigration is not arranged marriages. Illegal immigration is often motivated by the want for a better life using underhanded methods. At times that method may be an arranged marriage, but it may also be a dating marriage, or more likely, it may be finding any way to sneak into a country. Arranged marriages are pretty public, they often involve religious and cultural ceremonies, a great deal of expense (families travelling abroad), and an include an entire network of people; more importantly, in many cultures where arranged marriage is common, the dissolution of a marriage is a shameful situation for the individuals involved, especially if the dissolution stems from something as superficial as trying to get an entry Visa. |
|
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]Pro/con resources | |
|
[ ][ ]Yes |
[ ][ ]No |
|
[ ]References:
[ ]Motions:
[ ]In legislation, policy, and the real world:[ ]See also on Debatepedia:[ ]External links and resources:
[ ]Books:
| |