English Debating Society
The 1999-2000 debating season got off to an exciting start last Monday
IEP- Strasbourg
what is the first cause of divorce ? Marriage itself, according to 1st-year Political Science student Etienne Haro, who was the first speaker arguing in favor of the motion that " marriage should be outlawed ". With a wealth of heart-rending details, he told us the story of his newly-wed friends who were driven to divorce by the sheer horror of their married state and who had to inflict the lifelong scar of a separation on their child, even - horribile dictum - giving away their dearly cherished dog in the process. He went on to paint a dismaying picture of depression and heavy drinking induced by marriage, warmly entreating a by-now horror-struck jury to support the motion.
Sabine Franco was unfazed by this emotional appeal and rose to prove that outlawing marriage would entail dire economic consequences. Think of the wedding industry, she said, think of all those seamstresses stitching those glamorous wedding dresses, think of the organ player deprived of an opportunity to play the Wedding March, think of the photographer snapping pictures of the bride and groom for their numerous children to ooh and aah at -- all of them would be on the dole. And as to French industry - doesn’t its very existence depend on the sale of luxury goods for weddings ? " Support French industry, get married ! " were her final words.
Delphine Haberstroh took up the economic argument and asked us to think about what criminals and seemingly respectable married people had in common ? A shared desire to evade tax, was her answer. Married people pay less tax, so who’s going to pay for the national effort? Single people sweat their blood off to pay sky-high income tax, while married people with planet-size incomes only contribute ridiculous amounts. Married people are leeches on the nation’s back, only pretending to love each other. They are on a par with criminals.
On the opposition side, Pierrette Pape pointed out to Etienne Haro that he was confusing the problem of divorce with the the problem of partners. Interpersonal relationships, not the sacred institution of marriage, were the prime cause of divorce. Taking further the argument in favor of marriage, she asked us to think of churches. If weddings were outlawed, the state would have to fund churches. And what about playwrights ? They wouldn’t be able to write boulevard plays anymore. Nor would the people magazine industry fare any better if Eddy Barclay wasn’t allowed to marry someone new year in , year out. Where would that leave Gala and Voici ?
Sabine Meyer was the third speaker on the proposition team, and she spelled out the dilemma each one of us is faced with : being single is unnatural, but marriage requires us to remain faithful to the same person for fifty years and how natural is that ? In a William Reichian flight of fancy, she asserted we should all give free rein to our desires and have multiple relationships. Why, she wondered, should there be a contract to bind two people who are in love with each other ? And if you must marry, then do it with several partners. " Long live polygamy and polyandry " was the rousing conclusion to her speech.
Julie Schittly rejoined that being married didn’t mean you couldn’t have someone else on the side, thus showing she was willing to provide writing material to vaudeville authors. Marriage being the basic unit of society, it makes it possible for ugly people to get a mate, while they wouldn’t stand a chance outside that institution. Plus, getting married is a way of getting to know more people and expand your circle of friends.
Yann Marois then took the stand and proceeded to rebut Pierrette Pape’s arguments one by one. Then he lifted a small corner of the veil covering up his biography. He told us that as a teenager, he went to a church-based youth group, where he was told that any relationship outside marriage was wrong. The scar-tissue from this initial shock is still with him, he claimed. Then as time went by, he realized that the cultural basis of marriage turned it into a repressive institution. Marriage keeps you from being creative, he said. Look at our parents, now in their forties and think of their unmarried friends. Don’t the latter look better, don’t they seem to be having more fun, aren’t they more creative ? Marriage, he said, is a sexual killer and should therefore be outlawed.
The final speaker on the opposition team was Georgetown University student Jason Purcell. He reminded us of all the points raised by his team about the economic, literary and moral value of marriage. Then he pointed out that actually outlawing marriage would mean that anyone who wants to get married may be jailed, thus straining even more an already overburdened criminal justice system. There should be a choice, and if people’s marriages don’t work out, they can always get a divorce. If people just live together, they’ll split up over the first small disagreement. And what about the little kids? Et les gosses ? was his final word to entreat the jury to reject the motion.
Marc Hecker, Julie Kohler and Marion Lalot who made up the jury deliberated for a long time, while the motion was thrown open to the house where, amid much boisterous laughter, the audience finally got a chance to speak their minds. Much to the proposition team’s dismay, the motion was rejected for its disregard for individual freedom. Sabine Meyer was nevertheless awarded the best speaker title, and the runner-up was Jason Purcell.
As both teams were shaking hands, the lights started going out, indicating that the University’s Cerberus (aka the janitor) was impatient to close the place down for the night. As we hurriedly left, we were told in the rudest terms - and that’s the understatement of the year - that we had overstayed our welcome by no less than five minutes. This was the only hitch in an otherwise stimulating debating session, which augurs well of our chances of winning this year’s IEP-ENA tournament.
Viviane Serfaty
English teacher
English Debating Society Chair