| Love and marriage, a contradiction in terms |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 04.22.04 (11:23 am) Perhaps what you've shown is that the old Sinatra song from the 50's uses a bad analogy. You can have one without the other. But the question is what marriage means. To the government, it's a civil union that affords certain legal rights and protections. It gives a clear indication of who gets custody of children and provides a fair basis for taxing couples when only one works outside of the home. It also gives other legal protections. While some in the government may argue about marriage as a traditional institution, those arguments are spurious at best. After all, all those things that conservatives wish to protect with marriage are already protected outside of marriage. A couple can live together, have sex, children, homosexual sex, multiple partners, and terminate their relationships all without marriage. So marriage from a government point of view does nothing but establish a civil union. So if you are arguing against legal marriage, then you are arguing against whatever rights and benefits married people have, including custody of their own children, or the right to visit their own spouse in the hospital. I'd like you to elaborate why you think these rights and protections are wrong. As for religious marriage, it has no relevance as far as our government is concerned. While a religious leader may sign a marriage certificate in front of witnesses, any ceremony is irrelevant as far as the state goes. Indeed a religious marriage without the certificate has no legal standing. If the legal part occurred, ending it with a legal divorce is all that is required by the government. If that part is not there, then the couple could just walk away from each other and society as a whole is fine with it, at least in the legal sense. So if a religious wedding has no legal bearing in and of itself and a couple could ignore whatever the religious figure said, and even walk away from each other, then what's the problem? They don't necessarily have to stick to the predefined roles. If a woman gets married and the priest tells her that her husband is the senior partner in the marriage, she may choose to ignore that part and there's nothing that anybody can do. So you have a religious institution that is as old as recorded civilization itself, and it transcends borders and geographical locations. Calling it unnatural makes little sense. While some like to paste that label on human activity, there is nothing any more unnatural about what we do as a species than what any other species does. Obviously any other species that mates for life will not call it a marriage because they lack the ability to do so. But giving it a name and documenting the rules does not make the situation itself inherently more unnatural. If a couple wants to announce to the world that they are in a certain type of relationship, you can call that symbolic. But calling it demeaning or burdensome is unfounded. It would be foolish for me to pretend that such a relationship does not exist between me and my wife, or for either of us to not want others to know the status of our relationship. It would not be stronger that way. It would be unnatural. posted by: Shark99 (reply) post date: 04.22.04 (3:32 pm) Indeed an astute observation! posted by: Adil Salahi (reply) post date: 04.23.04 (5:03 pm) Marriage Without Parents’ Knowledge Edited by Adil Salahi Q. A woman married in court in Pakistan shortly after coming of age, without notifying her parents, or asking their view concerning her marriage. Her parents are upset because they would have preferred a better husband for her. Could you please explain the position of her marriage from the Islamic point of view. (Name and address withheld) A. The majority of scholars and schools of Islamic law consider it a condition for the validity of a marriage that the woman’s father or guardian should act for her. This is based on the Hadith that states: “No marriage is valid without the presence of the woman’s guardian and two witnesses.” However, the Hanafi school of Islamic law does not make such a condition. It considers the marriage valid when the woman acts for herself, provided that the other conditions are met. The argument of the Hanafi school is based on the fact that when God speaks about marriage in the Qur’an, He attributes all action to the woman herself. Without wanting to go into the merits of either view, we say that both have strong basis. As this marriage was conducted in a court in Pakistan, where the Hanafi school is predominant, it took into consideration all the legal requirements applicable in the country. Therefore, it is valid and no action needs to be taken on that count. The father may be angry with his daughter, and rightly so, but this does not invalidate the marriage. He himself would not like her marriage to be pronounced invalid, since it has taken place. The other point raised by the family is the social status of the husband and the fact that he is rather poor. The advice I would give to the family is that since their daughter has married the man in full knowledge of his economic circumstances, they should not make it a cause of a problem. In fact, they should try to assist their daughter and her husband if they can, in order to improve their situation. Otherwise, they should place their trust in God and pray to Him to assist their daughter and her husband. They may be poor now, but better days may be in store for them. posted by: krissy (reply) post date: 04.23.04 (8:38 pm) my parents wouldn't let me watch that show when i was growing up. too much a bad influence! posted by: AndrewNguyen (reply) post date: 04.25.04 (1:18 pm) I just want to say that you have interesting and informative links. Thankyou. |
|