4. Is the idea of having one partner for life still a realistic one?

1. Oppsing Paragraph 1: (Jarryl)

1.1. The idea of possessing one partner for life could be viewed as not pragmatic due to the different meaning of marriage to people today and the rashness of people in today's society.

1.2. -Today, marriage has, gradually and surreptitiously, developed into a platform merely for support. - Given the extreme competitiveness, people look to their spouses mainly for fiscal support. - Should the spouse be unable to provide shelter and fend for you financially, it would be unrealistic to admantly stick to him and suffer with him. - Marriage, to people today, is merely a security of financial matters to ensure a stable monetary status. Additionally, with the hastiness of people to rush into a marriage even before they are assured of their future, the first partner may obviously be not the one suited for you. - So the idea of one partner for life would not make any real sense to people today who make rash decisions. -The number of pre-marital sex cases have been on the rise, thus people tend to look into fulfilling their responsibility and make the quick decision to marry albeit unclear about their future.

1.3. Given the vast change of meaning of marriage to people today in addition to the hastiness of people, obstinately remaining with one partner for life may prove to be impractical as he or she may not be suited for you, both financially and spiritually.

1.4. Jarryl, you put in so much thought but, alas, your group has misinterpreted the question. It is not about whether polygamy is realistic. It's about whether people can realistically be expected to stay married to the same person for life.

2. Opposing paragraph 2: (Charmaine)

2.1. P:Iit is not realistic due to changing perceptions of the younger generation.

2.2. E: Although there are still people with traditional mindsets, the general community is getting more liberal. People are starting to find that the extent of what is considered acceptable in today's society's terms is far from what was acceptable in the early days. In a society where unfaithful spouses are a norm, sometimes the first partner might not be the partner that people need. Furthermore, unlike the past where divorcing is a shameful thing to be hidden from other people, people are getting more comfortable with the idea of remarrying after divorce. This lessens the emotional burden that a divorcee experiences, therefore increasing their tendency to split with their spouses if they feel that they are not as compatible as they thought they were.

2.3. Example: People might decide that another partner can better give them the emotional support that they need. In such a case, most people will find that changing a partner is acceptable. In fact, some people might find that if their first partner is unsuitable, changing one might be better for both of them.

2.4. L: Because mindsets are changing, therefore in some cases, in order to stay relevant and to best find a compromise to these changes, leaving an unsuitable partner in order to change to a more suitable one might be a more realistic option than sticking to the first unsuitable partner for life.

2.5. Good, Charmaine. You explained clearly why it may not be realistic in today's world to expect that people stay married to the one partner for life.

3. Conclusion (Charmaine)

3.1. Therefore, in today's society, it is still realistic to have only one partner for life because the capacity of how much someone can give is limited. A marriage is a union of two people, and is a give and take relationship for both parties. Whether polygamy or divorce and remarrying, it takes a heavy tax on a person. Therefore, in such a demanding society, rather than burden yourself with complications in the family unit, having one partner for life will enable members to give each other support, time and love that they need to keep going.

3.2. Ok, except for the reference to polygamy.

4. Supporting Paragraph 1: (Shabab)

4.1. P: Realistic since traditional values still hold for many.

4.2. E: Our roots and values from past generations still prompt us to retain important values. Religious institutions also impart their views on having one partner for your whole life. In our society, having many partners is not practiced by everyone and it can be socially less acceptable as it encourages immoral behaviour.

4.3. Shabab, yours is the shortest contribution. You need examples do back up your claims eg that religious institutions 'impart their views...". Also, do note that the question is not about polygamy.

5. Supporting Paragraph 2: (Aisyah)

5.1. P: It is realistic to stick with one partner for life provided both parties set aside time for each other.

5.2. E: Current Situation

5.2.1. Common to see both the husband and wife going out to work to support the family.

5.2.2. Both may be tied down by their work commitments that may hinder them from spending quality time with each other.

5.3. E: However, as long as both parties make the effort to strike a balance between work and their commitment to each other, a healthy relationship can still be maintained.

5.3.1. Eg. They can make themselves free for each other on weekends

5.3.2. Government has implemented 5 day work-week for civil servants. Makes it easier for couples to spend time with each other.

5.4. L: Spending quality time with each other would strengthen communication between the two whilst still keeping the love and joy in their marriage alive. Hence it is possible, with continuous effort to maintain this work-life balance, to remain with the same partner for life.

5.5. Ok Aisyah. At least you did not misinterpret the question.

6. Supporting paragraph 3: (Meredith)

6.1. P- Yes, it is still realistic as having one partner for life is sufficient in today’s world.

6.2. E- People think that life is only complete with marriage. -As marriage is a union of two different souls spending a new life together and more often, a family comes along with it when there are children. -Due to busy work schedules and limited amount of love that one can give, spouses, having multiple partners, would be forced to neglect some of them and in serious cases; conflicts might arise as their partners might feel their spouse is not doing enough for them or the family. Hence having a family is more than sufficient in today’s world as many couples are busy working and have very little time left for their partners or children - By only having one partner, the relationship the two parties would be more stable and, hence such marriages will last due to its stability and mutual trust between couples.

6.3. Example: Spending more time with a particular partner or favouring one partner more than the other would cause imbalance in the family and the neglected parties (partner or children) would get hurt, making the marriage unstable and not blissful.

6.4. L- As the saying goes, “Do not bite more than you could chew”. If having one partner is sufficient in life, there is no need to have multiple partners to create more problems especially when spouses neglect their partners. Thus the idea of having a single partner is still realistic and feasible as it provides stability to the marriage and allows the family to get more care and support from its members.

6.5. I appreciate the effor,t Meredith but like most of the others in your group you are thinking about polygamy and whether it is realistic. That is not the issue in the question. We will talk about this in class. Nothing to do for now.

7. Introduction (Qin Yong)

7.1. Yes, the idea of having one partner for life is still a realistic one.

7.2. Marriage has long been seen as the institution upon which happy, contented families are built, and indeed, in many societies, having more than one partner for life is considered tabboo. However, due to changing times and paradigm shifts, the issue of having one partner for life has come under scrutiny.

7.3. Even with changing views on the matter, and changing social landscapes, the family unit has not changed much, and is still relevant and applicable because however we look at it, the strength of the family unit is only as strong as it's weakest link, and if someone has more than one partner for life, the bonds are no longer as strong. There is only so much that one can give, be it time, love, or compromise to their believes and tradition.

7.4. Marriage- the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies or other form of binding agreements.

7.5. Qin Yong, I'm afraid your group misinterpreted the question and even with this interpretation I do not see clear sign-posting. We will discuss this next week. Nothing to do for now.