Should arranged marriages be allowed?

[Ghogiel]

I have read some fairly nonsensical things, but how does one defend the rights and freedom of one by denying the rights and freedom of another?

That's easy> Always deny someone the right or freedom that would allow them to infringe in some way on someone else's person, life or freedom.

 

What they get is freedom to choose. And that's it. On the topic of wives and husbands. No one else should be allowed to make that choice for you is what I think people are trying to say. That's part of it, The spectrum is broad and in a lot of cases that is just not happening. So ok, whatever, a forced and the typical arranged marriage that most people are familiar with are 2 different fish. That's fair enough.

 

I'll go with that. Anyway if I had no say, it doesn't matter who makes the choice, might as well allow the government to profile and genetically match me a partner. No one wants that s***. Now if can just say no, what's the big deal? My question is with opting out is there an ostracising penalty, would that pressure someone to adhere to these customs even if they don't really want to just because it's 'better' to just go along? What is really the cost of saying no.

 

Let's take an Indian version of this practice, what happens when you fall in love with someone from a different caste and the family is dead against it?

 

Anyway, I think it should be perfectly acceptable to frown upon this activity if they disagree with it.

 

ib4 feminist part of debate that goes into how this practice gender types woman into a particular role, usually unequal to the status of men, in that culture, society or household.

[Vindekarr]

I think it should be obliterated. There are some things we as civilised humans should not forgive, accept, or tolerate. Slavery is one of them. This is slavery.

 

I don't care whether you call it forced marriage or arranged marriage, they're the same thing, they cannot be tolerate, they should be removed from existance. You cannot justify choosing who a woman will spend her life with, for her, while she is still a child, without even consulting her. You cannot justify doing this to advance your own family as is the reason for many of these. You cannot justify the horrific violence women are often subjected to in these marriages. There can be no tolerance, no acceptance of crime of this magnitude in the modern era. We are better than this as a society and a species, we have a duty to be.

 

As far as I'm concerned there is not even an argument. Arranged marriage, and the related honour killings, female circumcision, brutalisation, and enslavement cannot be justified, rationalised, or tolerate. They simply deserve to be consigned to history where they belong.

 

Tidus you cannot justify enslavement as the "rights and freedom" of slavers. These men are guilty of crimes you seemingly cannot even imagine. Perhaps if you'd seen a child get married off without their consent, knowing they're going to live their entire life in misery, simply to make their father richer, you would see things differently. Slavers do not deserve rights or freedom, they deserve to be punished. Severely.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Vindekarr

[Ghogiel]

Um.. no dude. Slavery is a different thing. And throwing that term around like that is devaluing it's severity. Also forced marriage is a different thing. Lumping slavery and forced marriages in with arranged marriage as the same thing, and then forming an argument that says how horrible slavery and forced marriage is is a straw man.

 

You cannot justify choosing who a woman will spend her life with, for her, while she is still a child, without even consulting her

Not how it works in arranged marriages. Both bride and groom can say reject suitors. You are confusing arranged and forced marriages.

 

You cannot justify the horrific violence women are often subjected to in these marriages.

 

Can we have a statistic on battered wives in arranged marriages vs non arranged? Considering 90% of marriages in India are arranged, I think you maybe off base with often.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Ghogiel

[Tidus44]

I have read some fairly nonsensical things, but how does one defend the rights and freedom of one by denying the rights and freedom of another?

That's easy> Always deny someone the right or freedom that would allow them to infringe in some way on someone else's person, life or freedom.

 

What they get is freedom to choose. And that's it. On the topic of wives and husbands. No one else should be allowed to make that choice for you is what I think people are trying to say. That's part of it, The spectrum is broad and in a lot of cases that is just not happening. So ok, whatever, a forced and the typical arranged marriage that most people are familiar with are 2 different fish. That's fair enough.

 

I'll go with that. Anyway if I had no say, it doesn't matter who makes the choice, might as well allow the government to profile and genetically match me a partner. No one wants that s***. Now if can just say no, what's the big deal? My question is with opting out is there an ostracising penalty, would that pressure someone to adhere to these customs even if they don't really want to just because it's 'better' to just go along? What is really the cost of saying no.

 

Let's take an Indian version of this practice, what happens when you fall in love with someone from a different caste and the family is dead against it?

 

Anyway, I think it should be perfectly acceptable to frown upon this activity if they disagree with it.

 

ib4 feminist part of debate that goes into how this practice gender types woman into a particular role, usually unequal to the status of men, in that culture, society or household.

 

Since you chose to take a single statement out of context, I will clarify for you so you get the point.

 

What has been said is that all arranged marriage is unacceptable and those who practice it should be forced to abandon the practice - essentially hunted down and purged from existence. This would include those who are acceptable and willing to be part of an arranged marriage and who welcome it as part of their cultural heritage.

I have no idea how you find this to be an acceptable means of addressing a problem or as defending the freedom of choice.

 

By the standard that you and others seem to want to set, any cultural activity that is abused or that could result in the abuse of others must be banned and eradicated, regardless of the choices made by those practicing it, simply because you find it unacceptable. I find it extremely contradictory that one would advocate the denial of rights and freedoms on one hand, but demand that they not be infringed upon by others on the other hand.

[Tidus44]

Tidus you cannot justify enslavement as the "rights and freedom" of slavers. These men are guilty of crimes you seemingly cannot even imagine. Perhaps if you'd seen a child get married off without their consent, knowing they're going to live their entire life in misery, simply to make their father richer, you would see things differently. Slavers do not deserve rights or freedom, they deserve to be punished. Severely.

 

First, I have not justified "rights and freedoms" of slavers in anything I have posted.

 

Second, you have no idea of who I am, what I can or cannot imagine, what I have seen or not seen or for that matter anything about me at all.

 

Lastly, I have no issue with you or your opinion other than it is likely not worth the time or effort to even attempt to have a reasonable debate with you. While you may continue to advance any hysterical and unfounded accusation that you feel is appropriate, I request that you do not include nor reference me in any posts you may make in the future, especially if they involve attacking me personally without justification.

[Ghogiel]

I have read some fairly nonsensical things, but how does one defend the rights and freedom of one by denying the rights and freedom of another?

That's easy> Always deny someone the right or freedom that would allow them to infringe in some way on someone else's person, life or freedom.

 

What they get is freedom to choose. And that's it. On the topic of wives and husbands. No one else should be allowed to make that choice for you is what I think people are trying to say. That's part of it, The spectrum is broad and in a lot of cases that is just not happening. So ok, whatever, a forced and the typical arranged marriage that most people are familiar with are 2 different fish. That's fair enough.

 

I'll go with that. Anyway if I had no say, it doesn't matter who makes the choice, might as well allow the government to profile and genetically match me a partner. No one wants that s***. Now if can just say no, what's the big deal? My question is with opting out is there an ostracising penalty, would that pressure someone to adhere to these customs even if they don't really want to just because it's 'better' to just go along? What is really the cost of saying no.

 

Let's take an Indian version of this practice, what happens when you fall in love with someone from a different caste and the family is dead against it?

 

Anyway, I think it should be perfectly acceptable to frown upon this activity if they disagree with it.

 

ib4 feminist part of debate that goes into how this practice gender types woman into a particular role, usually unequal to the status of men, in that culture, society or household.

 

Since you chose to take a single statement out of context, I will clarify for you so you get the point.

 

What has been said is that all arranged marriage is unacceptable and those who practice it should be forced to abandon the practice - essentially hunted down and purged from existence. This would include those who are acceptable and willing to be part of an arranged marriage and who welcome it as part of their cultural heritage.

I have no idea how you find this to be an acceptable means of addressing a problem or as defending the freedom of choice.

 

By the standard that you and others seem to want to set, any cultural activity that is abused or that could result in the abuse of others must be banned and eradicated, regardless of the choices made by those practicing it, simply because you find it unacceptable. I find it extremely contradictory that one would advocate the denial of rights and freedoms on one hand, but demand that they not be infringed upon by others on the other hand.

 

If someone chooses their partner of their own free will, then there isn't a problem is there.

 

Always deny someone the right or freedom that would allow them to infringe in some way on someone else's person, life or freedom. Protecting the freedom and rights of others (includes myself) from being infringed upon supersedes religious, cultural, historic, family honour, secular, what ever customs. And yeah, if this cultural practice is actually an infringement of another's person, freedom or rights, yeah I want something done about it and people accountable for it. All above board.

 

By the standard I set, any cultural practice that is the abuse or exploitation of others, whether direct or indirect, must be banned and eradicated, regardless of the choices made by those practising it, simply because I find it morally unacceptable to allow the abuse of others, condone abuse, or hand wave it away under the pretext that it is 'cultural'.

 

Now back to arranged marriages. Because it is too subjective to figure out how much pressure there is to go along with it, what repercussions there might be for not following these customs (woman honour killings etc) it's impossible to paint the whole thing negatively with the same brush because on a per case basis the circumstances vary too much to bother to legislate against it on the whole. Additionally not much would change if it was legislated against. The participants would just sign an affidavit that they want to get married even if pressured to do so because of culture, family honour, or because they actually just want to please the family and uphold their honour. Who am I to argue with someones choice and reasoning to get married. As long as they get a choice, preferably with no 'cultural' strings.

 

Anyway, since the hidden pressures aren't quantifiable, my question is does this practice promote inequality of genders? If there is a strong enough case that it is in fact part of a traditional value system that keeps women in these society on an unequal footing with men. Well then, Houston we have a problem.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Ghogiel

[Nintii]

I know couples from arranged marriages that worked and from arranged marriages that didnt work.

 

Those marriages that worked relied on the fact that they never had an emotional attachment to begin with and so had to make

it work to satisfy the powers that be ... namely, their parents, tradition, culture or faith ... and so when problems arose, they

stepped back and said this is not about me but about my family etc.

 

This might initially seem like the foundation for your life was set by others and therefore not your choice and therefore controlling,

but when it comes to loving one another and keeping the family unit together ... this external force or authority if you'd like to call

it that, is a very stabilizing factor and points out the fact that you need to love your spouse not because he or she is so loveable

but because "higher powers" demand it ... and like I've said hose "higher powers" are family, culture, tradition etc.

This keeps marriages and the family unit together.

 

On the other hand where relationships do not have this external factor to which they adhere the option for divorce is so much

easier to make ... like Western culture.

 

However, having said that, the whole child bride arranged marriage thing is simply glorified child abuse ... imagine an adult male

marrying a 12 or 13 yr old girl ...

I regularly see young girls of no more than 15 or 16 carrying babies in their arms while their 40 something yr old husband walks on ahead

and you just know that the arrangement was all about money.

It's a well known fact that many muslims inter-marry to keep the money within the family ... and the child deformities are there to prove

it ... I dont say this out of hate or predjudice but simply as an observation.

And many a time the girls are barely into puberty.

 

I do hear a lot of stories emanating from the UK where the arranged marriages do not go down to well with Pakistanis, Tamilians or Hindi's.

girls and those who oppose the pre-arranged marriages are even sometimes killed.

It is fairly obvious that the these girls are accustomed to Western culture and therefore reject the "traditional" lifestyle.

My concern is where the Legal system let's many escape justice citing Culture as the reason for leniency.

Rubbish, any form of violence against another human is and should always be a crime.

 

Would I oppose pre-arranged marriages ?

No, I would have guidelines, checks and balances etc.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Nintii

[juderodney]

I voted yes, and here's why. There are cultures that have been doing such for centuries, and no one has the right to force his/her culture on anyone else. Of, course the rights of the individual are also sacrosanct, and in my view if such a marriage is truly coerced, then I consider it slavery, and that is already illegal in most of the world.

 

So yes, let a someone's parents decide whom to marry and yes, let the betrothed accept/reject that decision when the time comes. And it anyone tries to force their will on either side of it, then the consequnces of such are theirs. Any questions?

[Ghogiel]

I voted yes, and here's why. There are cultures that have been doing such for centuries, and no one has the right to force his/her culture on anyone else.

So it's ok it's old?

[Nintii]

I voted yes, and here's why. There are cultures that have been doing such for centuries, and no one has the right to force his/her culture on anyone else.

So it's ok it's old?

 

So old is bad and therefore does not work ?