Why is it that people on this forum can never, ever enjoy a discussion without resorting to insults? Seriously, guys... just chill out! Just because you've got different viewpoints doesn't mean you can't get along... calm down and fight for your side like real men! :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh jeez, are you freakin serious? Did you try reading the thread? I know I've been warned about making fun of you, but just stop rofl. You're trying too hard

 

 

 

Sorry. I didn't realize you wanted to exclude yourself from any type of serious discussion based on the idea that you play video games. Won't make that mistake again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Serious discussions don't need to involve useless pedant. It's okay if you don't understand. I forgive you.

Okay, you say that "arranged marriages are barbaric", yet when someone tries to explain to you why arranged marriages are there, the logic behind it, and why it is not perceived as barbaric in their culture, you flip out saying it's your opinion. Someone tries to reason with you, and you totally reject them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

WELL OF COURSE IT IS GOD DAMNED OPINION!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT THE DO YOU WANT US TO SAY!

Wow, that's all I have to say... wow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, maybe I have a little more to say. :-k You're saying Shadowfax is flipping out, and from your last post, you look like you're going crazy. :wink: You know what they say, if a crazy man calls you insane, take it as a compliment.

 

 

 

@ Locke, could you explain how marriage is supposed to serve some sort of different purpose, just because of someone's idealism? We're talking about real human beings here on both sides. Are you assuming there is no abolute right or wrong with which to judge?

Reason what? That they have a different point of view in terms of what freedom and marriage is? I already acknowledged that. But that is why I'm criticizing it because it is not what I think it should be. If I wanted the obvious to be said to my face, I would have said so in the beginning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With Locke's reasoning, he wants me to post reasoning for people that do not exist here. Everyone here understands 'my' meaning of marriage and freedom. I wouldn't be here if I wanted to discuss arranged marriage with people who were restricted to that kind of mentality and fully oblivious to the societies that do not employ arranged marriages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not here to discuss why they exist, I'm here to discuss why they are barbaric to us. Some countries culture involves them killing off female children because males are much more wanted. Maybe it's right to them, but I can't [bleep]ing care less because it's blatantly wrong to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Want to prove me wrong? Tell me the merits of having arranged marriage

@ Locke, could you explain how marriage is supposed to serve some sort of different purpose, just because of someone's idealism? We're talking about real human beings here on both sides. Are you assuming there is no abolute right or wrong with which to judge?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In countries where arranged marriage is the cultural norm, the idea of marriage has nothing to do with pursuing romantic interests. The idea of marriage is an institution just like family, one that you don't choose, and one that is useful to the families as a whole, and therefore benefiting society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To answer your last sentence, I do believe there is an absolute right, and that there is an absolute wrong, but I don't see his problem having either. I don't think our idea of marriage is any more right than any other, because I don't see it harming anyone. Like Shadow did, you could say that it is robbing people of their freedoms they deserve, but then I could just say that not allowing children to be allowed to leave their family and pick a new one is robbing them of freedoms. In cultures where marriages are arranged, the idea of "family" is much more of a life-long commitment than it is here. "Marriage" is just an extension of the same family you were born into, and since its purpose is not self-serving, but for the entire family, our idea of choosing our own mate her meets certain romantic criteria is irrelevant. That is not what marriage is about in other cultures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With Locke's reasoning, he wants me to post reasoning for people that do not exist here. Everyone here understands 'my' meaning of marriage and freedom. I wouldn't be here if I wanted to discuss arranged marriage with people who were restricted to that kind of mentality and fully oblivious to the societies that do not employ arranged marriages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is no more restricted than children not being allowed to leave one family and choose their own. Is our idea of family barbaric? Freedom is such a relative word. You are being inconsistent by suggesting that its barbaric because freedoms are restricted, yet you ignore all of the freedoms restricted in our culture. It's exactly like what John Locke wrote about. Everyone is born with liberty, and we sacrifice some freedoms that accompany that liberty for the betterment of society. Why is it barbaric if a culture chooses to sacrifice one freedom, but when your society sacrifices another it isn't barbaric? Your society has decided that it is good for it if people pursue romantic interests in order to find a mate of their own - it is a product of the much more separated idea of family that is prevalent in our culture. Our families don't have the life-long commitment that cultures that have the tradition of arranged marriage have towards each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just don't seem to give enough evidence to make me think that the loss of the freedom to choose your own mate is the important of a freedom that it would make it "barbaric" for a society to decide it was better to not have it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not here to discuss why they exist, I'm here to discuss why they are barbaric to us. Some countries culture involves them killing off female children because males are much more wanted. Maybe it's right to them, but I can't [bleep] care less because it's blatantly wrong to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, as your topic title suggests, you are here to discuss why they are barbaric, in an absolute sense. If instituted in our culture, of course its barbaric, but from a transcultural standpoint, I don't see the loss of the freedom to choose your mate as something you have proven to be 'barbaric' AND been able to stay consistent with your own beliefs.

I never claimed my culture to be perfect. But the thing is, this thread isn't about my culture. If I wanted a thread pointing out the faults of my culture, I would've done so. But no - I made this thread to discuss the issue with other people who are mostly not influenced by such tradition. I expect people to agree and disagree obviously, but because they understand what I'm coming from. I understand what you're trying to say, but like I already said a few times, that is not the point of this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may claim that cultures that still use arranged marriage may show more commitment, but I don't believe that at all. Be careful with what you claim as 'our families' or 'our culture' as my culture is sure to be different from yours. Marriage is something permanent and is dear to us. I'd even be willing to say that from the people I've met over the years, people of my culture have a much stronger family bond than others. Why do you think my country doesn't even have divorce? I understand that that is another form of lack of freedom, but that's for another thread. My culture is as rich as the ones which employ arranged marriage. Rich culture seemed to have become synonymous with the phrase third world countries, but that's exactly where I came from. I'm proud to be of that culture - something that you probably are not a part off. But rich culture isn't always synonymous with the phrase arranged marriage. What your culture may have a fault at will not be the same with mine. That's why I spared the technicalities and spoke the general terms most of the people here can understand.

I never claimed my culture to be perfect. But the thing is, this thread isn't about my culture. If I wanted a thread pointing out the faults of my culture, I would've done so. But no - I made this thread to discuss the issue with other people who are mostly not influenced by such tradition. I expect people to agree and disagree obviously, but because they understand what I'm coming from. I understand what you're trying to say, but like I already said a few times, that is not the point of this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But it has to be about your culture as well in order to make your view consistent. For people who support arranged marriage, marriage is just another part of family that you don't choose, it is a freedom that is given up for the betterment of society. Without being able to give reason that one freedom is more important than another (choosing your family over choosing your spouse) your views are inconsistent with themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may claim that cultures that still use arranged marriage may show more commitment, but I don't believe that at all. Be careful with what you claim as 'our families' or 'our culture' as my culture is sure to be different from yours. Marriage is something permanent and is dear to us. I'd even be willing to say that from the people I've met over the years, people of my culture have a much stronger family bond than others. Why do you think my country doesn't even have divorce? I understand that that is another form of lack of freedom, but that's for another thread. My culture is as rich as the ones which employ arranged marriage. Rich culture seemed to have become synonymous with the phrase third world countries, but that's exactly where I came from. I'm proud to be of that culture - something that you probably are not a part off. But rich culture isn't always synonymous with the phrase arranged marriage. What your culture may have a fault at will not be the same with mine. That's why I spared the technicalities and spoke the general terms most of the people here can understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I honestly don't understand the point of this paragraph. I'm not interested in which countries are rich or poor, nor am I interested in whether or not the countries have divorce. My point was that the definitions of marriage, and the definitions of family, are different in different cultures. For you, you are willing to give the freedom to leave your family and pick a new one, and that is not barbaric. But you people who are willing to give up their freedom to choose a spouse are barbaric? There is no reason for this unless you define marriage in a way that refers to pursuing a romantic and personal interest in marriage, and that is NOT what marriage is. It's not a matter of have a different perspective, its a matter of it being a different thing completely. For their cultures, your spouse is just like your parents, they are not chosen, it just an addition to your family that you love because it is your family. If you view marriage as an idea that is separate from the idea of your first nuclear family, then of course it seems barbaric. But if you view marriage as something that is just like not being able to choose your family, why would it be barbaric? There is absolutely no reason that you have shown that would convince me that one freedom is barbaric to give up, and one isn't. It's just different.

My point is how you claimed my culture to be yours. Which it's not. You know nothing of my culture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You keep pointing out the inconsistency of my posts, but what about yours? How can you prove that arranged marriage is for the betterment of the society? How can you prove that the ability to choose your own spouse is for the worse?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to pretend to be on their shoes when I don't want to. I'm criticizing it from this point of view which I've acknowledged so many times now that I'm tired of it. I'm not going to use their logic because I have mine. Using theirs defeats the purpose of me criticizing them. If people were to take things from the other side's point of view, what's the point in arguing? My views does not equal theirs. I got that the first time you posted. But that is NOT why I made this thread. I made this thread because of my point of view. How many times do I have to reiterate this?

Rofl, Shadow.

My point is how you claimed my culture to be yours. Which it's not. You know nothing of my culture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You keep pointing out the inconsistency of my posts, but what about yours? How can you prove that arranged marriage is for the betterment of the society? How can you prove that the ability to choose your own spouse is for the worse?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to pretend to be on their shoes when I don't want to. I'm criticizing it from this point of view which I've acknowledged so many times now that I'm tired of it. I'm not going to use their logic because I have mine. Using theirs defeats the purpose of me criticizing them. If people were to take things from the other side's point of view, what's the point in arguing? My views does not equal theirs. I got that the first time you posted. But that is NOT why I made this thread. I made this thread because of my point of view. How many times do I have to reiterate this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why would you make a thread where everybody has to argue things from your POV? That's fairly close minded and exclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"For me, in my life, where I live, at my age, arranged marriage is barbaric".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wonderful. Who cares? It's completely irrelevant to everybody but yourself.

Rofl, Shadow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You forgot the bolded huge letters dude. Don't worry, I fixed it for you. Was *I* flipping out again? :lol:

Why would you make a thread where everybody has to argue things from your POV? That's fairly close minded and exclusive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"For me, in my life, where I live, at my age, arranged marriage is barbaric".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wonderful. Who cares? It's completely irrelevant to everybody but yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...what? Jeez, sorry if my vocabulary sucks, but that's not even what I'm getting at. He wants me to speak to a "universality of humanity" when people here can understand me. When I talk about freedom and marriage, people here actually understand what I mean. There's no need to speak 'universally' when people here can fully understand me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And don't tell me you don't argue from your point of view either, you do it all the time. Everyone does it, but according to some people, I have to go the extra mile for no reason.

You keep pointing out the inconsistency of my posts, but what about yours? How can you prove that arranged marriage is for the betterment of the society? How can you prove that the ability to choose your own spouse is for the worse?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He doesn't have to prove the benefits of arranged marriage: You are the one saying that it's barbaric, so the burden of proof lies on you. He's given you good reasons why it isn't barbaric, which you've yet to refute. He never said taht choosing your own spouse is for the worse, merely that arranged marriage isn't barbaric.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to pretend to be on their shoes when I don't want to. I'm criticizing it from this point of view which I've acknowledged so many times now that I'm tired of it. I'm not going to use their logic because I have mine. Using theirs defeats the purpose of me criticizing them. If people were to take things from the other side's point of view, what's the point in arguing? My views does not equal theirs. I got that the first time you posted. But that is NOT why I made this thread. I made this thread because of my point of view. How many times do I have to reiterate this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then for what did you make this thread? It seems like you made this thread only for people who come from your point of view and agree with your point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Locke's point is that your reasons for calling arranged marriage barbaric are inconsistent with your own beliefs about your own culture. He has shown you, in terms familiar to you, how arranged marriage is reasonable and acceptable. Your response has been to plug your ears, stick your tongue out at him, and say "I'm only going to look at this from my point of view, which is right, and ignore logic and other points of view!" Why not actually deal with his arguments rather than refuse to look outside your point of view?

When I said my POV, I meant they understand what my posts mean, and why I'm posting. You don't have to see it my way, I'm just saying that people here understand what marriage is, and what freedom is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't close my ears, I said the word 'acknowledged' so many times. But this kind of logic being used against me confuses me. Let me understand a bit better, here's an analogy of mine and explain where I'm wrong:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say I'm from a culture that believes in God. Culture and religion go hand in hand because pretty much everything we celebrate that we call tradition is related to our religion. And an atheist comes in from a different culture - he says, "you're a moron because God doesn't exist." We're at this point now where I will go "yeah well, you shouldn't be saying that because your culture has a different view of what intelligence is"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What am I missing here?

My point is how you claimed my culture to be yours. Which it's not. You know nothing of my culture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You keep pointing out the inconsistency of my posts, but what about yours? How can you prove that arranged marriage is for the betterment of the society? How can you prove that the ability to choose your own spouse is for the worse?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to pretend to be on their shoes when I don't want to. I'm criticizing it from this point of view which I've acknowledged so many times now that I'm tired of it. I'm not going to use their logic because I have mine. Using theirs defeats the purpose of me criticizing them. If people were to take things from the other side's point of view, what's the point in arguing? My views does not equal theirs. I got that the first time you posted. But that is NOT why I made this thread. I made this thread because of my point of view. How many times do I have to reiterate this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides reiterating the points that both Astralinre and insane made, let me explain this to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are saying that arranged marriage is barbaric in your culture, then I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. However, that's not the issue, because arranged marriage is not part of your culture. Therefore, to reason that arranged marriage is barbaric you have to either logically show that arranged marriage is barbaric in a culture that has it OR you have to logically show that arranged marriage is barbaric in a way that is transcultural, or universal. Obviously it is your point of view that arrange marriage is barbaric, we all understand that. But since you are not in that culture, you need to show logical reasons why arranged marriage is barbaric in a transcultural sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You bring up the examples of how "if another culture condones murder it doesn't make it right just because of its their culture." This is exactly the point I'm trying to make about giving logical transcultural reasoning. Speaking from a perspective of universal humanity, I could reason that no one has the right to take the life of another human. My reasoning is consistent with all of my beliefs regarding human life AND it is from a transcultural perspective, that is, no matter the culture, the belief remains the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this example, however, you are falling short of your burden of proof. If you believe that arranged marriage is barbaric, in an absolute and transcultural way, you must first give reasons that extend beyond a cultural perspective. The example you gave is the limitation of freedoms, however, this makes your views inconsistent because you are not addressing the point that marriage for those cultures is much like your culture's view of family. You don't choose your family, and a spouse is the same in those countries. So then explain why choosing your spouse should be a universal or transcultural freedom AND why choosing your family isn't IIF a spouse is considered to be in the same category of family as your parents and siblings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, I want to address the point that you keep reiterating that this is just your opinion. Of course it is. You make this statement like your opinion cannot be challenged just because its your opinion, yet at the same time you challenge us to give logical reasons why you're wrong. When we give you logic, you just ignore it and say "it's just my opinion." That seems to be an illogical response.

oh. my. gosh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this post hasnt died yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIE, DIE PLEAZ!

Besides reiterating the points that both Astralinre and insane made, let me explain this to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you are saying that arranged marriage is barbaric in your culture, then I don't think anyone here would disagree with you. However, that's not the issue, because arranged marriage is not part of your culture. Therefore, to reason that arranged marriage is barbaric you have to either logically show that arranged marriage is barbaric in a culture that has it OR you have to logically show that arranged marriage is barbaric in a way that is transcultural, or universal. Obviously it is your point of view that arrange marriage is barbaric, we all understand that. But since you are not in that culture, you need to show logical reasons why arranged marriage is barbaric in a transcultural sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You bring up the examples of how "if another culture condones murder it doesn't make it right just because of its their culture." This is exactly the point I'm trying to make about giving logical transcultural reasoning. Speaking from a perspective of universal humanity, I could reason that no one has the right to take the life of another human. My reasoning is consistent with all of my beliefs regarding human life AND it is from a transcultural perspective, that is, no matter the culture, the belief remains the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this example, however, you are falling short of your burden of proof. If you believe that arranged marriage is barbaric, in an absolute and transcultural way, you must first give reasons that extend beyond a cultural perspective. The example you gave is the limitation of freedoms, however, this makes your views inconsistent because you are not addressing the point that marriage for those cultures is much like your culture's view of family. You don't choose your family, and a spouse is the same in those countries. So then explain why choosing your spouse should be a universal or transcultural freedom AND why choosing your family isn't IIF a spouse is considered to be in the same category of family as your parents and siblings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, I want to address the point that you keep reiterating that this is just your opinion. Of course it is. You make this statement like your opinion cannot be challenged just because its your opinion, yet at the same time you challenge us to give logical reasons why you're wrong. When we give you logic, you just ignore it and say "it's just my opinion." That seems to be an illogical response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, alright. From the initial posts, I couldn't make it out if you were just trolling me or not. Because it is obvious that I have this view of arranged marriage is because it is not employed by my culture. But thanks for this post, much clearer for me than the earlier ones. I'm sure it's the lack of comprehension on my part, but very sorry if I kinda got irritated. It's tough to speak for every culture as there's a lot of circumstances to consider, but I'll try.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A spouse is different from the family you're born into because you can actually choose who it should be. This is the person you're going to permanently be with for the rest of your life. As you get older, you move out of your parents' house and build your own. The ability to choose who you'll spend the rest of your life with is crucial because it will affect not just you, but your children as well. Would your parents know what you would want as a wife? What I've seen some people post here is that the parents would want the best for their child. Of course they would, but how would they know that the spouse-to-be will be the 'best'? Do they spend time with the him/her? 'Love' isn't something made up. It's an emotion that affects people psychologically if suppressed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's take into consideration another thing - the gender. What if the child is homosexual? Most of the cultures that employ arranged marriage belong to countries where homosexuality is condemned and criminalised. Imagine a gay person being forced into a permanent relationship with a woman. That just won't work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another thing I want to point out is how the discipline of arranged marriage is similar to caste systems. The only one I've actually studied is the Indian Caste System where your future depends on your bloodline. What your job would be in the society is decided by the society itself. Yes, one can argue that it keeps the society moving as it ensures that every need of the society will be taken care of. Similar to how you stated that people marry just to make sure the society functions. But the most famous critic of such system is Mahatma Ghandi. He fought to have the caste system fixed because it is not fair, especially for the ones in the bottom caste as it's legal to treat them like nothing. Just because it ensures their society works still doesn't mean it's right.

oh. my. gosh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this post hasnt died yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIE, DIE PLEAZ!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why?

A spouse is different from the family you're born into because you can actually choose who it should be. This is the person you're going to permanently be with for the rest of your life. As you get older, you move out of your parents' house and build your own. The ability to choose who you'll spend the rest of your life with is crucial because it will affect not just you, but your children as well. Would your parents know what you would want as a wife? What I've seen some people post here is that the parents would want the best for their child. Of course they would, but how would they know that the spouse-to-be will be the 'best'? Do they spend time with the him/her? 'Love' isn't something made up. It's an emotion that affects people psychologically if suppressed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This entire argument is from your cultural perspective and I feel as though you've ignored the insight I've given to other cultures. For your culture, a spouse is different from the family you're born with because you choose. The point I'm trying to make is that in cultures who adopt the tradition of arranged marriage, this is not the case. A spouse is merely an extension of the family, it is selected by the parents (the head of the family) in order to mutually assure the success of the family. Our culture immerses itself in the idea of a spouse being someone we are in love with and will fit certain needs because our definition of a spouse is different. In cultures who have the tradition of arranged marriage, a spouse is not the same thing at all. You love your parents because they are your parents, not because you sought them out and chose them. The same attitude is directed towards a spouse in these situations. The problem is that you want to separate the idea of the family you are born with and how you manage to love them, and a spouse, because your culture chooses to do that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's take into consideration another thing - the gender. What if the child is homosexual? Most of the cultures that employ arranged marriage belong to countries where homosexuality is condemned and criminalised. Imagine a gay person being forced into a permanent relationship with a woman. That just won't work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it is the belief that homosexuality should be condemned and made criminal, then that is a different issue entirely. You have to remember that in arranged marriages, people aren't expected to have an erotic love towards each other, it's a love that comes from being in a relationship that assures the mutual success of two families. It's not about starting a new life with someone, it's about how best to continue the life that is there with the families that are present. The entire definition of marriage is different. Marriage is merely a tool to keep families, and thus societies, thriving, it is not the same thing marriage is in your culture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another thing I want to point out is how the discipline of arranged marriage is similar to caste systems. The only one I've actually studied is the Indian Caste System where your future depends on your bloodline. What your job would be in the society is decided by the society itself. Yes, one can argue that it keeps the society moving as it ensures that every need of the society will be taken care of. Similar to how you stated that people marry just to make sure the society functions. But the most famous critic of such system is Mahatma Ghandi. He fought to have the caste system fixed because it is not fair, especially for the ones in the bottom caste as it's legal to treat them like nothing. Just because it ensures their society works still doesn't mean it's right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A very good point about the Caste system. You're also right that just because something ensures a society works doesn't mean it's right (although Machiavelli makes a good argument for just that), however, that still doesn't offer me any logical reasoning as to why arranged marriage should be deemed barbaric. Maybe I missed something in that last paragraph.

If it is the belief that homosexuality should be condemned and made criminal, then that is a different issue entirely. You have to remember that in arranged marriages, people aren't expected to have an erotic love towards each other, it's a love that comes from being in a relationship that assures the mutual success of two families. It's not about starting a new life with someone, it's about how best to continue the life that is there with the families that are present. The entire definition of marriage is different. Marriage is merely a tool to keep families, and thus societies, thriving, it is not the same thing marriage is in your culture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marriages don't have to be regulated to keep the society thriving. Other cultures don't force people to marry and their societies work fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A very good point about the Caste system. You're also right that just because something ensures a society works doesn't mean it's right (although Machiavelli makes a good argument for just that), however, that still doesn't offer me any logical reasoning as to why arranged marriage should be deemed barbaric. Maybe I missed something in that last paragraph.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry if I didn't make it clearer, but the caste system itself is barbaric. It's uncivilized to discriminate a certain caste just because they're deemed as lower in the society.

 

If it is the belief that homosexuality should be condemned and made criminal, then that is a different issue entirely. You have to remember that in arranged marriages, people aren't expected to have an erotic love towards each other, it's a love that comes from being in a relationship that assures the mutual success of two families. It's not about starting a new life with someone, it's about how best to continue the life that is there with the families that are present. The entire definition of marriage is different. Marriage is merely a tool to keep families, and thus societies, thriving, it is not the same thing marriage is in your culture.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marriages don't have to be regulated to keep the society thriving. Other cultures don't force people to marry and their societies work fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is because marriages in other cultures have different purposes (as stated above). Yes, other cultures do have functioning societies that do not have arranged marriages. However, it is not the only way to do things. Just because something works does not mean it is the only way to do it. It keeps their society thriving.

That is because marriages in other cultures have different purposes (as stated above). Yes, other cultures do have functioning societies that do not have arranged marriages. However, it is not the only way to do things. Just because something works does not mean it is the only way to do it. It keeps their society thriving.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's the benefit of forcing people into marriage and allowing them to choose?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for argument's sake, can you list cultures that thrive from arranged marriage?

Marriages don't have to be regulated to keep the society thriving. Other cultures don't force people to marry and their societies work fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never said they do, that is just how they work their. It is how they found it to work. You need to give me logical reasoning why there is something fundamental and transcultural that would make treating the addition of a spouse to the family just like any other family member, something that is not chosen out of personal desire by the child a barbaric lack of freedoms WHILE also explaining why not letting people choose their own families to grow up with is NOT barbaric.

If I'm going to take the time to do that, can you list cultures that are supposed to 'thrive' off arranged marriage?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Cause the reasons why people would use arranged marriage is inter-family relationships. Also, it ensures that their child marries someone of their preference (race, caste, etc.). Not exactly for 'thriving'