arranged marriage

[10293847]

If the goal is to lower the divorce rate, than the solution is to make it A LOT tougher to get a divorce. I don't see the advantage in arranging two people who have absolutely nothing in common, except for the fact that their of the same race, and expecting them to live a happy, fulfilling life.

There is very little to no love in the equation when a marriage is arranged. It's like a business transaction. Not exactly loving, is it?

 

[speed]

If the goal is to lower the divorce rate, than the solution is to make it A LOT tougher to get a divorce. I don't see the advantage in arranging two people who have absolutely nothing in common, except for the fact that their of the same race, and expecting them to live a happy, fulfilling life.

There is very little to no love in the equation when a marriage is arranged. It's like a business transaction. Not exactly loving, is it?

Haha, but you know 1029.... that marriage was created for a suitable and easy need to transfer property to the males offsprings. There was nothing about love until the late 18th century. In fact, only the peasants married for love, as there was no need for transferring property or wealth. For love, one had a mistress or a lover.

 

[Hubster]

I think perhaps Demiurge's post pointed out is the breakdown in moral systems regarding relationships and monogomy in current day society.

I agree with what Demiurge is pointing out there, but not with the arranged marriage side of it because of my own experiences with my family and my ethnicity.

Arranged marriage is definitely not the way to go, but perhaps education on moral systems is a better alternative. This of course, will take time and possibly span over one generation.

As a sidenote: the age of "gentlemen and ladies" has been long past now for a number of decades, but in my opinion it has sped up considerably in the last 10 or so years. Chivalry is almost a term which doesn't exist, which is a shame I feel (yes, I'm a bit old fashioned).

(I will generalise here, but there are of course exceptions to everything): young people entering relationships don't seem to think forward enough, nor seem to exercise patience or perseverance when it comes to riding through tough times in relationships. They look for quick and easy options and don't "work" at things as much.

Overall in the current younger generation, it seems there's a lack in education for relationships. Surely this should be brought up in schools? I know it might sound absurd, but where else could someone learn these skills when growing up, other than from their parents?

 

[Evil Dead]

Marriage is worthless unless you want a tax break ( U.S.)

 

[Hubster]

I've personally become very opposed to the constitutional form/idea of marriage. I don't agree with how spending a truckload of money on a ceremony where hardly anyone knows each other, and signing a contract shows that two people love one another.

Two people are married if they simply decide to stay together and love one another for all time. Nothing else needs to said or proven in my book.

It's mental, spiritual and emotional thing, not a contract/money thing.

 

[derek]

Firstly: arranged marriage is an affront to any free thinking persons autonomy. Using the state of personal choice marriage in modern times to justify the acceptance of the opposite is idiocy.

Secondly:It's not racist to say that Islam is an incredibly misogynistic religion and even within that context i can have no respect for the practise of pre-arranged marriage and what it represents.

Thirdly: Whomever said marriage was an out-dated idea was right. It's not about a lump of paper and a legal joining together, its about something greater.

 

[derek]

I still find it an insult to personal autonomy. And to be honest, i'm not entirely sure what the point your making is.

Some thoughts I did have was who or what decides when a person has become "useful" or "worthwhile" enough to be allowed to exercise their autonomy? I can't see that as a workable system, nor one as compatible with personal choices and freedoms: either we are free or we aren't...placing confines on freedom and choice is self defeating.

 

[Demiurge]

I still find it an insult to personal autonomy. And to be honest, i'm not entirely sure what the point your making is.

Some thoughts I did have was who or what decides when a person has become "useful" or "worthwhile" enough to be allowed to exercise their autonomy? I can't see that as a workable system, nor one as compatible with personal choices and freedoms: either we are free or we aren't...placing confines on freedom and choice is self defeating.

I believe even minor choices are not "owned" by an autonomous subject, as is the naive view, but are dependent upon signs and social systems. Since I consider this to be the case, I will say nothing of freedom and choice. I do recognize that a power can be oppressive, of course, but this is because such power calls attention to itself and refuses to lie beneath a veneer, which is the limitation we are so accustomed to as to not consider it.

 

[derek]

Ok, i see where he was going with it. I still find problems with arranged marriage in any form, not because I am some nampy-pampy hippy but because marriage has lost its meaning. Many arranged marriages are for money, wealth, respect etc and I have no respect for that. It used to be a sign of love between two folks, but know it seems like that ideal has been replaced by something altogether more vulgar.

I can't say I have much more to say on the topic, but sufficed to say, thanks for the discussion folks.

 

[NeverIsForever]

More sex? What is "loving" when you say this?

I mean love exists between the partners from the beginning. It's not something they have to learn to feel for the other person eventually (if at all.) For people to marry each other based on love and not arrangement, there must theoretically be love between them. Whether they are having sex or not is irrelevant IMO. People in a relationship by choice almost certainly (yes, I'm sure there are exceptions) love each other more than two random people who may not even know each other, let alone care for, and/or desire physical intimacy with, one another.

That sounds terrible for marriage. It's just some game you play when you find someone really hot that makes you laugh and puts out. Then you get divorced and move on because someone decides to grow up. That's insipid people with unrealistic expectations of marriage either trying to fix the problems in their relationship through the act or hoping it might make a lousy existence more meaningful.

Sorry if you find it terrible, but divorce exists whether you like it or not. I didn't feel like just ignoring that fact in my response. Ideals aside, divorce is a reality. Notice that my post was in no way advocating divorce. I merely pointed out that even couples whose marriages do end in divorce probably did love one another at some point, and to me that's a more valid reason to marry someone than mere convenience, even if it doesn't work out. Let me ask you this: are you always right the first time at everything you try?

 

[speed]

I am sliding more and more over to Demiurge's side on this one. It seems now marriage is all about fulfilling ones own generally irrational needs and desires, without taking the children and the greater community into concern. Surely there must be a way to balance marriage?

If I havent said it before ( Im too lazy to read the entirety of this old thread) I believe marriage is quickly heading into oblivion. Not only do more people get divorced than stay married, but divorce has become so easy legally that this trend will only strengthen. Add our aforementioned me me culture to the mix, and how much longer will people even bother to go through with marriages?

And really, ladies especially ( although there are a number of males who subscribe to this theory) why does a percentage of the female population believe love= marriage? Not sex ( although some still believe sex if you wish to have it with them is conditioned upon marriage), or friendship, or deep feelings; but when one loves another, most seem to think they must get married.

Weird I say.

 

[NeverIsForever]

@ speed: I don't believe love necessitates marriage. But I do believe if you're going to marry someone, there had better be love

@ Schwerttau: I didn't say anyone needed to get married. But if they chose to, I still say love is a better reason for that decision than someone else choosing for them (arranged marriage.) If there are in fact "far greater" reasons for arranged marriage, please elaborate.

@ everyone who supports the idea: Suppose arranged marriage did become a reality...who would you want making such a significant decision for you? On what factors should such a decision be based? What if someone doesn't want to get married? Does society force them to? What if the parties decide they want a divorce? Would that even be permissible, if divorce is the evil you're trying to avoid in the first place?

 

[Demiurge]

I don't think it's inevitable that people will become outraged and experience the misery that you would were you "forced" into an arranged marriage. You see, this individualistic mentality that you(and the rest of us) have is not essential to the human. In other words, this ethos is grounded in our context and is not intrinsic to us. Society would force them as it forces us to have occupations. I'm quite certain that the 35 year old men I see working in department stores don't feel like whittling their hours away at their dead end jobs, but they more or less have to; society, for the most part, doesn't consider this an oppressive state of affairs, either.

 

[NeverIsForever]

I agree that we're highly individualistic, to a negative extent. But I dare say most jobs, however tedious, are less intimate and less personally violating than, say, having the children of someone you don't know/care about. Thus I'm not sure that this comparison is a sound one.

 

[Demiurge]

You're baselessly universalizing the particular. You're thinking of humanity as an aeterna veritas. In other words, you are taking what you and your contemporaries believe and attributing it to Man per se. This is exactly what I'm criticizing.

 

[derek]

Regardless of context, I still think man has a basic right to autonomy and a basic wish to exercise it. So in that respect, saying arranged marriage is wrong is hardly attributing modern values to human-kind in its entirety.

 

[Demiurge]

I'm saying that the modes a person will consider to compromise his autonomy are themselves dependent upon structure and the Symbolic. For this reason, I find no use in discussing whether arranged marriage is oppressive in itself. What you suggest is, in fact, creating a static, transcendent subject who can be relied upon as a rational foundation. You are also mistakenly universalizing the particular. This happens a lot because we are so embedded that it is difficult to conceptualize matters from a different perspective.

 

[derek]

I think your still being slightly dismissive. I totally agree that we tend to universalise the particular, but I don't think that is what I am necessarily doing here. Let me explain what i've been trying to get at:

While we must acknowledge context when considering what could be seen as autonomy, I still regard there as being a basic, universal ideal of human autonomy. I understand that it can be relative to context, for example within a religion or belief structure, but I don't see that construct as necessary.

I understand the concept of universalism, and can see that the idea of what constitutes autonomy are much different for me than for, say, my Grandparents. Having said that, while i acknowledge people can conceptualise differently what autonomy means to them, I still see there as being a universal standard as to what it actually means, that manages to avoid human conceptions of it.

I hope, i've tried to make myself clear enough.

cheers,

derek

 

[Demiurge]

Let me try another way. You are of a highly individualistic time and I suggest that other societies may well value communal tradition more than the consumer autonomy we are familiar with. I'm not telling you this is necessary in a philosophical sense, after all, we don't think like that. However, the way we look at our sphere is not necessary or privileged, either. If it is true that there a psycho-physical tendency of humans in themselves to pursue the appearance of social freedom within some limit, it means nothing to the topic of arranged marriage. This is because arranged marriage need not be thought to impinge on freedom(we could name various examples in our social structure that could be considered an affront to freedom, but more importantly, are not). A custom can be so embedded in our way of life that it's not oppressive.

I'm saying it is impossible to step outside the mentality that has been instilled in us since birth and our parents beforehand for the purpose of making an ahistorical, transcendent judgment about Man.

 

[NeverIsForever]

Let me further demonstrate my individualistic nature, then, in saying that I don't really care about making an ahistorical and transcendent judgement about Man. The way I see it, you only live once, and to be quite honest I'd rather spend that time married to someone I want to be married to, if I get married at all. Selfish? Certainly.

But it's also far more practical, in my opinion, than exploring moral high ground and viewing individuals unions in a global context. There are 6 billion of us on the planet. In the great scheme of things, who cares? My genetic contribution to the species would at best be one or two children. Does it really matter to society who I would want to provide them with the other half of their genetic material?

Customs can become embedded in our way of life to the point that they are not viewed as oppressive, but that takes time and a lot of getting used to. I don't think the transition phase would be either helpful to or well received by the vast majority of American citizens, especially those who don't concern themselves in the least with philosophical ideals.