Freedom of marriage... is it a right?

[jsc]

The detainees were also forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's "Slim Shady" album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic, sources said.

Hell, that would make me frantic.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

Oh we accept traditional Aboriginal law here.

Once an Aboriginal man raped someone in huis tribe and the court let the elders spear him (almost) to death.

We honour their laws and customs. Why not Lebanese ones?

Right or wrong is subjective here.

From the socially constructed viewpoints of both cultures, they are acting in what they say are right.

thats a bit different, europeans invaded the Aboriginal land, so it is really Aboriginal land and their law which we must honour. I also think rapist should perhaps be speared to death. Forced/arranged marriage is basically rape anyway as you will be expected to have sex with them also. Its disgusting.

 

[ltrazaklt]

I would say the word 'invaded' is a bit harsh ..please bear in mind that many Europeans were actually forced out of Europe and some literally dumped onto foriegn shores. and as often as not , they were not welcomed with open arms by the 'native' peoples there, as often as not, the first thing the native people did to Europeans was try to kill them.

 

[Reynod]

Well you will be pleased to know much of Australian history has been "rewritten" to better reflect the truths of the early days.

Incidents like the "Battle of Pinjarra" is now the "Massacre of Pinjarra" and treated as a blot on our history instead of something to celebrate.

In recent years many issues such as the "Stolen generation" and basic aboriginal rights have been better handled.

Our PM every had a "Sorry Day" including a public apology which in my mind is a step in the right direction.

I find native american cultural values very interesting too.

I think we have a lot to learn from these cultures ... ours is by no means superior.

In fact we are from a sustainability perspective a mile behind.

 

[amdfangirl]

Our ex-PM, Reynod.

Ruddy isn't in power anymore.

 

[Reynod]

Well I don't know how much longer she is going to last ... her approval rating is just about into single figures ...

All thats holding her in place at present is Wilkie and the other independent screwballs.

Won't be long now ...

I didn't vote for her ... nobody did in fact.

I voted for Kevin !!

My prediction is about a week ... maybe two.

Things are falling apart around her.

Its embarrasing to have a PM who is single, female, has no kids and has a boyfriend who is a hairdresser (the total package that is).

I am surprised we haven't been invaded by Indonesia by now.

The only reason I can think of why they haven't is because they are still laughing so much they haven't got around to it.

We look about as formidable as a Collins class submarine ...

 

[amdfangirl]

Juila Gillard.

We don't like you because you ate Kevin Rudd.

Now the only reason you're in power is because of a bunch of screwballs.

And you just do their bidding.

You've broken all of your promises to keep yourself in power.

If someone backstabbed Gillard it would only get worse, the votes for the ALP.

If you've heard the latest ALP capaign on asylum seekers...

Linkage: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/alp-launches-ads-on-boat-changes-in-a-bid-to-resurrect-the-malaysia-deal/story-fn9hm1gu-1226156057436

When I can vote. Going Australian Greens all the way. I'm too much of a leftie to support the Liberals.

Yuck.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

No worries mate...unless

Unless Indonesia has a sheep shortage, then be very worried

 

[amdfangirl]

Pfft.

They'd go after NZ first.

😀

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

heheh so true

 

[Reynod]

Naa ... too far away.

They just wanted East Timor.

Bummer about that eh?

 

[Mutt x]

I suppose AMDfangirl that this situation confuses you in part because you believe all cultures are equally valid and "good." Perhaps I am wrong about you, but once you throw out the idea of any universal/absolute moral standard all you are left with is what is legal or culturally acceptable or personally preferred.

The conflux of developmental, moral, legal and social issues in this case make it very complex. No simple answer here, but because of the destructive power of non-consensual sex I would be inclined to favor the party who avoids it (in this case the 16 year old girl).

On the legal issue I would add the following. For society to function the law of the land is to be upheld. No free pass just because you don't like it or that's not they way you did it back home. In countries where the rule of law is established there are means to change bad laws. In places where there is no respect for the rule of law it doesn't really matter does it?

 

[Twoboxer]

This kind of culture clash is inevitable, and it begins to point out that diversity being a good thing has more severe limits than one would think.

In a society where a 16-year old can bring her parents up on charges of child abuse or emancipate herself for far less serious issues (eg, the US), it is simply *impossible* to honor the cultural requirements of those who believe in arranged marriages like this case.

This is why we have separate countries and physical borders.

 

[amdfangirl]

I suppose AMDfangirl that this situation confuses you in part because you believe all cultures are equally valid and "good." Perhaps I am wrong about you, but once you throw out the idea of any universal/absolute moral standard all you are left with is what is legal or culturally acceptable or personally preferred.

The conflux of developmental, moral, legal and social issues in this case make it very complex. No simple answer here, but because of the destructive power of non-consensual sex I would be inclined to favor the party who avoids it (in this case the 16 year old girl).

On the legal issue I would add the following. For society to function the law of the land is to be upheld. No free pass just because you don't like it or that's not they way you did it back home. In countries where the rule of law is established there are means to change bad laws. In places where there is no respect for the rule of law it doesn't really matter does it?

I never said that I view all cultures as equally vaild or good.

I just raised point that these laws and viewpoints are socially constructed.

In a similar way, in high-context cultures such as those of sub-sharan Africa will place a high emphasis or 'politeness' if you will. Their culture defines not losing 'politeness' as more important than the truth. In Western culture, it is reversed. If you asked a native (southern) African for directions and he did not know the answer, through his cultural frame, he often will view telling you a lie about the destination rather than be impolite with admitting that he does not know the course you should take. Is he wrong? Perhaps.

Definatelty according to our culture.

While it is easy to judge the values and attitudes of one culture with the values and attitudes of our own do not forget that this is a form of bias.

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) it is illegal for a non-consenting parties to be married, but this too in part is shaped by Western culture, Western views of right and wrong.

Like many social constructs, such as morals and laws, our view Western view of adulthood would be 18 or 21, depending on the country. Here in my state, sex is legal at the age of 16, whilst it varies in the Western world it is often agreed that children having sex at the age of 13 is considered vile and repulsive, when in fact, most 'children' are sexually mature at that point.

If this were any other creature except homo sapiens, that would be considered adulthood, sexual maturity. Biologically speaking it would be best to put all of the males in gladitoral combat and let the survivors reproduce. Survival of the fittest.

I personally don't think it to be right, but I have an obligation to raise discussion and argue for both sides when I see an article that I deem to be interesting, just to make you all think. 😉

 

[Twoboxer]

It *is* interesting, and as I said before its why we have separate countries.

 

[amdfangirl]

^ You posted before I did and I didn't put a quote in 😛.

This kind of culture clash is inevitable, and it begins to point out that diversity being a good thing has more severe limits than one would think.

In a society where a 16-year old can bring her parents up on charges of child abuse or emancipate herself for far less serious issues (eg, the US), it is simply *impossible* to honor the cultural requirements of those who believe in arranged marriages like this case.

This is why we have separate countries and physical borders.

But what are the limits on multiculturalism?

Just how far can we go with the concept?

 

[Twoboxer]

IMO, not very far. Because the significant Culture_A vs Culture_B differences must force one, the other, or both cultures to change. That's not multiculturism, that's forced melting pot. France, Germany, and the UK have made noises recently that indicate they are getting the message.

In a free country, letting some people do certain things without letting the others do it is quite difficult. It becomes impossible when either choice is based purely on what an individual "thinks" is right. It violates the very definition of "society".

Are there some multi-cultural differences that are workable within a single society? Sure. Food, holidays, and the like. Language is a classic example of a multi-cultural issue that's a real hurdle. Can someone who comes to the US operate without learning English? Should we all learn language_A, language_B, etc to accomodate all who wish accomodation?

When One comes to a country, should the One change or should evryone adapt, every time, to every new One? If not to each and every new One, at what point do we stop?

Its why our own constitution specified "states", now 50 of them, and reserved only certain powers to the Federal government. (No laughter now, that's really what was done. It's just become a bit muddy over the years lol.)

Its why separate countries evolved, are continuously formed even today, and will remain.

 

[Mutt x]

Like I said, throw out absolute standards and all you have left are legal, social/cultural and individual preferences.



It's wise, as AMD suggests, to start with a "we are all biased" perspective but logic/reason and immutable moral laws give you a better result than "every opinion is equally valid."

 

[Twoboxer]

Like I said, throw out absolute standards and all you have left are legal, social/cultural and individual preferences.



It's wise, as AMD suggests, to start with a "we are all biased" perspective but logic/reason and immutable moral laws give you a better result than "every opinion is equally valid."

Yup.

I used to quote "murder" as an immutable moral law, but I can give you a couple of examples where societies differ on the definition. Substantially differ.

Please give some examples of immutable moral laws.

 

[Outlander_04]

Please reread, AND read the article. The girl does NOT want to be made to accept a pre-arranged marriage. It is her parents who are trying to make her marry a stranger. She got herself added to the watch list so if her parents try to fly her out, they will HOPEFULLY be prevented.
I say, GOOD FOR HER!

Edit: So yes, freedom FROM FORCED marriage is indeed a right.

I couldnt agree with you more .

I am in awe at this young womans bravery

 

[Mutt x]

Yup.

I used to quote "murder" as an immutable moral law, but I can give you a couple of examples where societies differ on the definition. Substantially differ.

Please give some examples of immutable moral laws.

Twoboxer,

It's all about authority. So if different people have different things/beings they recognize as authoritative they will have different arguments about what is immutable.

From a Christian perspective (and the foundational mores of Western civilization) the immutable would be values like: honesty, humility, service, justice, freedom of conscious, human dignity, stewardship of creation, mercy, compassion, generosity, respect and most of all love. Jesus said all God's law hinged on two commandments: to love God completely and to love others as one loves oneself.

Particular immutable laws from Scripture would be: the sanctity of human life, the absolute value of persons, the necessity of forgiveness, the priority of service, the expectation of a life surrendered to God.

Christians (and some others) recognize an authority greater than any human authority. Secularist and atheists recognize only human authorities and thereby throw out and absolute or immutable precepts. By rejecting God we make ourselves out to be God.

What I believe is beneath all this is a conscience. It's a God given rudimentary moral compass. It informs us that things like theft, rape, murder, betrayal, exploitation are wrong. It's rare to meet someone who doesn't know right from wrong. It's just that our wants/needs tend to have more influence over us than our conscience. (Therefore we create laws that attempt to conform human behavior to what is acceptable).

There, is the water sufficiently muddy? lol

 

[Twoboxer]

Well, *your* moral compass certainly isn't everyone's. And one's own compass isn't necessarily the *result* of a particular "authority". In fact, most often the reverse is true . . . an authority was constructed to support a specific set of beliefs. And as a result, to restrict/exclude the beliefs of others.

I believe you have a perfect right to live your life thinking the things you outlined are immutable. That would affect only you. As a Jesuit-trained Christian, my own beliefs are quite likely to closely match yet not be identical to yours. Together we should have the right to live in a society that on the whole supports both of our values. By definition, that would exclude many, many other people.

But others who believe their own set of values is god-given must have the same rights. As do those who believe their values come from the universe, or nature, but not any god, because there is no god. When you attempt to construct a society to support too wide a set of beliefs, you eventually have a society with no rules at all. Which, to the original point, is why you can have Chinese restaurants in the US, but multiculturalism cannot work.

Addressing your list of immutable truths by example . . . as a Christian I may disagree with you - and certainly I would disagree with many other Christians - on how the "sanctity of life" applies to abortion. Were I Muslim, I *might* believe its ok to lie to you, or kill you because you are a non-believer. In fact, I may believe god demands it. We also might disagree on what is sufficient to justify an honor killing, etc, etc, etc.

As a result, once you step outside the boundaries of your own society, it is NOT rare to meet someone who you would say does not know right from wrong.

For the most part, this is why states and countries formed and must remain, why many, many wars have been fought, and why multiculturism cannot work. Separate societies limits your ability to bind me to your beliefs . . . and protects you from mine

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

The main point is - and that relates to everyone in this thread - that everyone should be free to believe and do whatever the hell they want to, as long as it doesn't affect other people. That is true freedom and the only criteria for determining the rights every human should possess. Arranged marriage is a perfect example of violation of this concept and there's NO justification to it.

You talk about [:amk-aka-phantom:1] different cultures [:amk-aka-phantom:1] and their differences from a Western culture - but were the people in this so-called cultures given a choice whether to follow these values or not? No, they weren't. I'm eagerly looking forward towards a collapse of these obsolete beliefs and the chaos it will bring to the countries stuck with them... they're violating their citizens every day and every minute, buzzing about how they don't want the Western culture to "poison" their society, but they forgot to ask their citizens - those that actually understand that they're entitled to have a choice.

 

[billybobser]

Practice beliefs under the laws of the land, if your beliefs break the law, move country(alysum) or conform. Don't bitch about what you should've known before.

These laws are (typically) created with the general consensus of the people (in a democracy anyway).

 

[wanamingo]

Its a shame our elected officials feel the need to either be devote religious figures or have to show that they do have faith to be elected. I think once we can start electing people with different values then we are used to real change can be implemented.

How can you expect the "establishment" to support anything other than the status quo if we keep throwing the same types of people with the same views into the same positions?