Should arranged marriages be allowed?

[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?

 

So old is bad and therefore does not work ?

Perhaps.

[Tidus44]

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.

 

You appear to have quite a long list of cultural practices that you would ban.

 

A child refuses to eat their vegetables, and the parent forces the child to eat the vegetables under threat of punishment. I take it you will be banning vegetables or parents or the right of a parent to punish a child for disobeying them.

 

That may be a bit simplistic, so let's look at alcohol. Someone gets drunk and comes home and beats their spouse and children. So your solution is to ban alcohol?

What about guns?

 

I can see that you intend to ban all relationships of any kind everywhere as even those cultures that do not include arranged or forced marriage have their share of abusive relationships.

 

While I have no particular issue with your proposed solution to concerns involving rights and freedoms and cultural practices, I do think that complex issues require intelligent thought and realistic solutions. Simply banning something or going about killing those who refuse to follow your choices doesn't seem like a very good solution to me, and really, I doubt such a solution would even work.

 

I do however, have a problem with the idea that someone has any right or authority to determine what is right for someone else and force their will upon them. I do not see any difference between a parent forcing their daughter into an arranged marriage and you forcing the parents to abandon the cultural practice.

[DeadMansFist849]

For those concerned with cultural practices considered harmful: white-saviouring doesn't do any good. If possible, give support to existing groups of lobbyists etc. who want to get rid of forced marriage, forced body modification, etc.

 

There are already women's rights groups in South Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East (since those are the sort of areas people keep bringing up) who are working on cultural practices that go against principles of bodily autonomy and so on. Best thing to do is let them get on with their work.

 

Also, you can't compare trying to get a child to eat healthily with forcing that child to get married just after puberty (or as soon as they're legal) or forcing them into body modification of any sort. That's a terrible analogy. (Not to mention that when you have a child who has a sensory aversion to certain kinds of food, there's no sense forcing the issue. You find some other way to get them to eat nutritious food that doesn't subject them to the colour/texture etc. that they can't eat.)

[Tidus44]

Also, you can't compare trying to get a child to eat healthily with forcing that child to get married just after puberty (or as soon as they're legal) or forcing them into body modification of any sort. That's a terrible analogy. (Not to mention that when you have a child who has a sensory aversion to certain kinds of food, there's no sense forcing the issue. You find some other way to get them to eat nutritious food that doesn't subject them to the colour/texture etc. that they can't eat.)

 

 

Actually I can compare anything I want to any other thing I want because I have the freedom and right to do so. Further, I can do so without taking a single point of a conversation entirely out of context and then adding some convoluted imaginary conditions and completely off topic issues to justify my opinion about it in order to state exactly what is right and wrong or what others may or may not do.

[Ghogiel]

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.

 

You appear to have quite a long list of cultural practices that you would ban.

 

A child refuses to eat their vegetables, and the parent forces the child to eat the vegetables under threat of punishment. I take it you will be banning vegetables or parents or the right of a parent to punish a child for disobeying them.

 

That may be a bit simplistic, so let's look at alcohol. Someone gets drunk and comes home and beats their spouse and children. So your solution is to ban alcohol?

What about guns?

 

I can see that you intend to ban all relationships of any kind everywhere as even those cultures that do not include arranged or forced marriage have their share of abusive relationships.

 

While I have no particular issue with your proposed solution to concerns involving rights and freedoms and cultural practices, I do think that complex issues require intelligent thought and realistic solutions. Simply banning something or going about killing those who refuse to follow your choices doesn't seem like a very good solution to me, and really, I doubt such a solution would even work.

You're not making much sense.

 

Not that any of these are on topic;

 

If a parent abuses their child, for any reason, vegetables or no, I think something should be down about that. I'm sure your suggestion of banning vegetables will not be taken seriously as an alternative to child protection laws.

If a someone gets drunk and beats their spouse, he should get arrested for beating their spouse. Doesn't matter if they are drunk or not.

What about guns? I never mentioned guns.

As for banning relationships? lol what?

 

As for banning something as a solution. Perhaps. Worked for a host of things. It also hasn't worked for a host of things. 'Going about killing' people is just hyperbole either you or vindicarr conjured up, it's not being taken serious by me, I'm overlooking it as nonsense.

 

I do however, have a problem with the idea that someone has any right or authority to determine what is right for someone else and force their will upon them. I do not see any difference between a parent forcing their daughter into an arranged marriage and you forcing the parents to abandon the cultural practice.

So you don't see the difference in protecting every single persons freedom and rights equally and just allowing any old cultural practice to continue, regardless of it's nature, just because it's a cultural practice?

Why are cultural practices getting a carte blanche free pass to possibly infringe on the freedom and rights of an individual? Just because it is 'cultural'?

[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.

So it's ok it's old?

 

So old is bad and therefore does not work ?

Perhaps.

 

Yes, it's okay that it's old. The age of any practice is irrelevent. It's whether or not it harms others that matters. That's when change becomes necessary.

[HeyYou]

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 ?

Perhaps.

 

Yes, it's okay that it's old. The age of any practice is irrelevent. It's whether or not it harms others that matters. That's when change becomes necessary.

 

Trouble is, the definition of 'harms' is rather mutable, depending on the observers perspective. A father forcing his daughter into an arranged marriage that will benefit the family as a whole, does not see it as 'harming' anyone.....

[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.

So it's ok it's old?

 

So old is bad and therefore does not work ?

Perhaps.

 

Yes, it's okay that it's old. The age of any practice is irrelevent. It's whether or not it harms others that matters. That's when change becomes necessary.

 

Trouble is, the definition of 'harms' is rather mutable, depending on the observers perspective. A father forcing his daughter into an arranged marriage that will benefit the family as a whole, does not see it as 'harming' anyone.....

 

Tidus has already made a distinction between "forced" and "arranged". I, myself, have already called the former "slavery" and made the point of the rights of the individual.

 

Btw, why all the focus on the girl? In many arranged marriages, the boy isn't given a choice, either, and can be just as miserable.

[Tidus44]

snip

 

You made it quite clear that your standard is any cultural practice that directly or indirectly infringes on a person or that results in the abuse or exploitation of others, regardless of the choices made by those practising it, must be banned and eradicated because rights and freedoms supersede religious, cultural, historic, family honour, secular and/or whatever customs and cultural practices and because you find it morally unacceptable.

 

That's a pretty big and wide statement. So all I'm trying to find out is exactly how strict is your standard and at what point do you begin to be morally outraged and call for the complete ban of a cultural practice.

 

I'll stick to the arranged marriage issue so you don't get too confused.

 

At what point is it morally unacceptable to you, that you would be compelled to ban and eradicate the cultural custom of arranged marriage?

 

I'll set the scale ends here by suggesting one end being the child who is told by their parents a partner has been selected and the child is somewhat reluctant about the choice made. So the parents discuss this and reason with the child and the child accepts, even though the child is still somewhat apprehensive and reluctant, but is willing to go along with their parent's wishes.

 

At the other end of the scale the child is dragged kicking and screaming and beaten into submission in order for the marriage to take place.

 

So, just to clarify your position and your standard, exactly where, including either end and any point in between, do you find it so morally unacceptable it would be necessary for the protection of freedom and rights to force the complete ban of arranged marriage for everyone in a culture.

 

If you cannot clearly articulate exactly where the line must be drawn for acceptability or for the protection of rights and freedoms, and further, have every single human on earth agree with you, then rights and freedoms will never be protected equally. Just because you find something unacceptable does not mean everyone else does, and additionally they do not have to agree with your opinion no matter how morally outraged you may be.

To force others to comply with your standards of freedom and rights is to deny others their freedoms and rights to have a different opinion and a different standard.

 

As soon as you say you will force compliance with your standards, that when I start protecting the rights and freedoms of others.

 

The point I have is that the problem isn't with the cultural practice or the custom. It's how human beings apply the practice or the custom.

[Ghogiel]

snip

 

You made it quite clear that your standard is any cultural practice that directly or indirectly infringes on a person or that results in the abuse or exploitation of others, regardless of the choices made by those practising it, must be banned and eradicated because rights and freedoms supersede religious, cultural, historic, family honour, secular and/or whatever customs and cultural practices and because you find it morally unacceptable.

 

That's a pretty big and wide statement. So all I'm trying to find out is exactly how strict is your standard and at what point do you begin to be morally outraged and call for the complete ban of a cultural practice.

 

I'll stick to the arranged marriage issue so you don't get too confused.

 

At what point is it morally unacceptable to you, that you would be compelled to ban and eradicate the cultural custom of arranged marriage?

 

I'll set the scale ends here by suggesting one end being the child who is told by their parents a partner has been selected and the child is somewhat reluctant about the choice made. So the parents discuss this and reason with the child and the child accepts, even though the child is still somewhat apprehensive and reluctant, but is willing to go along with their parent's wishes.

 

At the other end of the scale the child is dragged kicking and screaming and beaten into submission in order for the marriage to take place.

 

So, just to clarify your position and your standard, exactly where, including either end and any point in between, do you find it so morally unacceptable it would be necessary for the protection of freedom and rights to force the complete ban of arranged marriage for everyone in a culture.

 

If you cannot clearly articulate exactly where the line must be drawn for acceptability or for the protection of rights and freedoms, and further, have every single human on earth agree with you, then rights and freedoms will never be protected equally. Just because you find something unacceptable does not mean everyone else does, and additionally they do not have to agree with your opinion no matter how morally outraged you may be.

To force others to comply with your standards of freedom and rights is to deny others their freedoms and rights to have a different opinion and a different standard.

 

As soon as you say you will force compliance with your standards, that when I start protecting the rights and freedoms of others.

 

The point I have is that the problem isn't with the cultural practice or the custom. It's how human beings apply the practice or the custom.

I'm not sure why you have stated I have made myself clear on the standard. And then ask where the line is drawn. It should be clear.

 

The line is drawn when a cultural practice infringes on someone's person, rights or freedom. Once it crosses that line it's done and it should be turned out like has happened with many cultural practices I don't see you trying to defend, slavery, biblical misogyny, human sacrifice etc.