| eenaweena 25.06.2007 08:22 |
okay. since debates usually happen here, i decided to put up this thread. First Prompt: do you think the freedom given to modern society to choose their own spouse (as opposed to arranged marriages) a detriment or hindrance to marital success nowadays? you may notify me if you want the prompt changed, then i'll think of another one. :D a new prompt will be given everytime this page reaches 30 pages. if it does, that is. |
| thomasquinn 32989 25.06.2007 08:31 |
Definitely not. First of all, it should be noted that "free" marriages were the standard ever since Early Modern times (in urban areas of course. The countryside always lags behind somewhat as far as social change is concerned). However, parents were given a kind of 'veto' over their children's choice of spouse. When any kind of force or coercion is used in the choice of partner, which is automatically the case with arranged marriages, a feeling of antagonism towards the arrangers, who are trespassing upon the self will naturally arise, causing in consequence feelings of antagonism towards the marriage itself. In addition, arranged marriages are born from the parents' or families' self-interest, and not love of any kind. Only through love and friendship can a marriage have a firm basis, as mutual trust and love are essential for a couple to share their lives completely. If not, at least one of the partners will feel bound or imprisoned by the marriage. |
| eenaweena 25.06.2007 08:42 |
^i agree with you. but, i will give my points later on. i'm still collecting my thoughts.... :D |
| magicalfreddiemercury 25.06.2007 09:12 |
I think it's more than prearranged or chosen. In societies where marriages are prearranged, the brides are usually still girls, not women. They're raised with the understanding that this is their destiny and so their sense of loyalty to their parents' wishes is greater than in a society where individual choice is encouraged. For that reason, I think prearranged marriages last longer. It's a matter of family honor. Are they happier? I highly doubt it. When a marriage is based on love and friendship, as TQ said, the chance for happiness is that much greater. Problems are easier to overcome since there is a bond neither side wants to sever - usually. IMO, problems arise when couples get married before that solid friendship has been formed. People seem too quick to formalize relationships rather than let them develop naturally. I see that as a sign of insecurity and believe that relationships built on that are destined to fail or at least flounder. What was the question? :/ No, I don't think freedom to choose a spouse is a detriment to marital success - that is if marital success means happiness within the marriage. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 25.06.2007 11:47 |
^^Nice to see you back, Magical. I was thinking about you and how you are doing since...well, you know. **Hugs** Oh, it's so nice to have a debate again! I love it! **grins evily** Now, my response: All of this answer hinges, as Magical said, on how you define a successful marriage. If you take the religious route and define a successful marriage as one that produces children and one where the wife is subservient to the husband, then arranged marriages are quite often successful. If you define it in a more social way, as in a successful marriage is one that doesn't end in divorce (or homicide as the case may be) then neither choosing a spouse or having one chosen for you makes much of an impact. If you define a successful marriage as the personal romantics do....one where both partners work together for the mutual happiness and love of the relationship, then I think that arranged marriages are a detriment. This doesn't mean that you can't learn to love your partner, as many people in arranged marriages do after time, but the arranging of the marriages often as more to do, as both Magical and TQ said, about the family reputation and the advancement of the family. In medieval times, The Church started to clamp down on marriages, as the fad at the time was what they called "Clandestine" marriages, or marriages that were entered into by the people who were being married, with no influence at all on the decision by any outside forces. It was after this clamp down that things like dowries and family agreements and things came into play on a more extended level (though dowries and such had always been the case among the nobility and the higher social strata). I'm sure the high divorce rate in modern societies will be brought up as a pro for arranged marriages, but that is not a valid argument. Most of the divorces happen not because a person is free to choose their spouse, but from their inability or unwillingness to fully understand what the vows of marriage mean (even if you aren't religious, most people will still recognize marriage vows as more binding than just a promise). You will find that many divorces happen to very young couples...couples who have no real idea what they are getting into when they decide to take the plunge. You have far better odds of your marriage being a strong one when you are older and more mature, know yourself and your partner better, and have a deeper appreciation for all of the aspects of the union, both positive and negative. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 25.06.2007 19:31 |
HistoryGirl wrote: ^^Nice to see you back, Magical. I was thinking about you and how you are doing since...well, you know. **Hugs**Thank you, HistoryGirl. It's been tough here, but then, sadly, you understand all too well don't you. My daughter and I have tried to turn our grief around by doing some good. We now volunteer a few hours a week at a local animal shelter. It's both sad and rewarding work and I'm glad we're doing it. Sorry for the hijack chickenlicious... |
| deleted user 25.06.2007 21:27 |
<font color="ffa500"><b> chickenlicious! wrote: First Prompt: do you think the freedom given to modern society to choose their own spouse (as opposed to arranged marriages) a detriment or hindrance to marital success nowadays?This reminds me of English class. ;_; "In a few paragraphs, write an essay in which you challenge, defend, or qualify the preceding prompt. Cite examples, such as from personal experience. Suggested time: 40 minutes." ^And that is from memory! *goes to suck thumb in fetal position in corner* AP essays...challenge...paragraphs...COMMA! AGH! |
| user name 25.06.2007 22:08 |
The "success" of a marriage is entirely subjective and ambiguous. Therefore, the question is moot. |
| eenaweena 26.06.2007 05:59 |
The freedom to choose your own spouse has pros and cons, as do most things. In this case, I would definitely say that having freedom in choosing your spouse is not detrimental to society, nor is it a hindrance. I believe this is so because it is morally incorrect to just force someone to marry a stranger as opposed to marrying someone that person loves, which is more acceptable to many. It is morally incorrect to force upon marriage to someone because it takes away their freedom to choose who is right and what is right for them. Taking away someone’s freedom to choose in any way is considered inhumane. Therefore, arranged marriages may be considered inhumane. It is not just morally incorrect to hold and arrange marriage without any consent from the person who is being arranged, it is also disrespectful. It is disrespectful because it does not respect the person’s decisions or the person’s feelings and emotions. Arranged marriages may end up in acceptance of what you have or having the ability to be content, but marriage isn’t built on that. It’s built on love and friendship, as we were all taught. Having arranged marriages, especially in a society critical of almost everything, is not just strange, but also outdated. Many people nowadays, if marriage to a stranger is forced upon them, would most likely rebel in hopes of finding a person they love and marrying them instead of their parents, of all people, choosing their husband for them. Parents are supposed to be critical yet supportive especially in important decisions such as this. ~an excerpt from my literature paper |
| AspiringPhilosophe 26.06.2007 13:28 |
Gee...that wasn't much of a debate. And it appears to be over already. **sniffles** |
| eenaweena 27.06.2007 05:37 |
next prompt, then? okay. Do you think that corporal punishment should be established in schools? |
| AspiringPhilosophe 27.06.2007 08:20 |
^^ **Looks thoughtful** Hmm....that's a good one! Unfortunately I'm working now, but as soon as I can't I'll be back for this one :-) Gotta establish my thoughts in the meantime |
| magicalfreddiemercury 27.06.2007 08:47 |
<font color="ffa500"><b> chickenlicious! wrote: Do you think that corporal punishment should be established in schools?Yes. Absolutely. I know many teachers who deserved some form of severe corporal punishment. :-/ Seriously, my answer is a resounding no. We see with a mere glance at our leaders how authority can make the mind numb to right and wrong. As it is, many of the teachers (at least in the schools I've had the misfortune to be part of) are not even qualified to teach. Giving them permission to hit the students would be an outrageous right they would often abuse. Unfortunately, many children are not disciplined at home and so bring that bad attitude to school - and everywhere else. But there are several reasons for that - in today's economy, both parents must work so more and more children are either latchkey or left with babysitters. When parents get home, they're not thinking 'discipline'. Also, in today's politically correct world, it is criminal to hit your own children. A parent has to look over his/her shoulder before physical punishment is delivered for fear of CPS being called. For teachers, then, to suddenly spank, paddle or otherwise humiliate the kids is not logical. I have a feeling it would not come off as deserved punishment but as a challenge or instigation. I can see, in today's climate, 'children' fighting back and lots of teachers left bruised, broken or worse. And bottom line for me is this - I'll discipline my own kid, thank you. Don't dare lay a hand on her. However, here's an opposing opinion - link |
| AspiringPhilosophe 27.06.2007 13:10 |
Thank goodness there are parents out there like Magical, but I have to admit that they are few and far between...and that is the problem. My mother was never particularly good with discipline. She never quite knew what to do with me, since if she told me to go to my room I was like, "Hell, I've got a radio and all my books in there...that's fine with me!" My father, on the other hand, knew how to discipline. I will fully admit that he spanked me. I realize it's criminal to do that nowadays, but he did and though I hated it at the time I am grateful now that he did it. There are a lot of people who are anti-spanking, and to be honest I'm not sure I'd do it to my own children (if I ever have them), but it has gotten absolutely rediculous. Parents can't spank their children anymore because it will damage their fragile psychies....well mine is just fine thank you very much, probably better because I learned self-monitoring and discipline because of spanking. The problem with time outs is that it is only an effective punishment if the child has remorse for what they have done, is explained to why they are being punished. It's a mind game...I can't tell you how many times I've seen my second cousins just sit there quietly waiting for the time out to end. This is not an effective punishment, because they just learn not to get caught. Remorse for your actions is what makes time outs a punishment, and if no remorse is there, then it's not an effective punishment. I'd like to add one reason that parents are not disciplining their children to what Magical has said: They are too busy wanting to be the kid's friend. Every parent wants to be the cool parent, the one their kid's friends are envious of. It's sad that the parents feel the need to base their self-esteem on the judgments of their kid's friends, but that's the way things are. These parents have to grow up and realize that they are PARENTS, not PEERS. There are time when they are going to be hated and yelled at and told that they are the worst parents ever...tough shit. It hasn't killed anyone yet, and kids never mean it long term anyway. So because no one disciplines their kids, the kids run their environment...an attitude they bring with them into the schools. While there are definitely examples of teachers who are not qualified to teach, I have to take exception to all of them. Having been at a teaching based (meaning we educate mostly teachers) university for the last six years, many of my good friends are or have been teachers in public schools before coming back for graduate degrees. In talking with them, I've seen that they are up against an impossible task. They are expected to be parents, social workers, law enforcement officers, judge and jury, bureaucratic wizards, and STILL manage to find time to teach. They CANNOT do it all in the time that they have. Because kids are coming in without the discipline from home, the kids are not well behaved by any stretch of the imagination. You cannot teach children like that, so the teachers spend all of their time trying to control the situation and try to get it to a level where they can teach...and often they run out of time. Society expects teachers to pick up the slack where parents are failing without giving up any of their other duties...this is an unreasonable expectation. If parents are not going to discipline their kids, then I think the schools are going to have to step up to the plate because SOMEONE has to do it. Now I'm not saying it should automatically be corporal punishment, but I don't think that corporal punishment should be banned either, because you have to reach the kid somehow, and there are EXTREME circumstances where this is the only option. Keeping it as a last resort is a necessity, I think...but it should only be used as a LAST RESORT. And here is an example of what I mean: A kid I went to high school with had started a fight in the |
| Donna13 27.06.2007 14:38 |
I think it can be quite dangerous the older the kids get. My mother's friend is a teacher and some kid pulled a knife on her. She took it away. You can imagine how that went. Anyway, she is very brave and didn't get hurt. |
| eenaweena 30.06.2007 04:03 |
*revives* hehe. |
| eenaweena 02.07.2007 05:26 |
hmmm... let's see... i'll have a newer, more controversial prompt. do you think the UN still serves its purpose as a peace-keeping body? |
| JoxerTheDeityPirate 02.07.2007 05:48 |
<font color="ffa500"><b> chickenlicious! wrote: hmmm... let's see... i'll have a newer, more controversial prompt. do you think the UN still serves its purpose as a peace-keeping body?not anymore. its value was undermind after bush and blair distorted the facts regarding the report on iraqs wmd's.it has its heart in the right place but it is easily manipulated by the US in particular re aid and weaponry in other countries |