PDA

View Full Version : Arranged/Convenience Marriages



cosmocreator
Sunday, April 25th, 2004, 07:03 AM
The more I witness the choice most women make in a partner, the more I think arranged marriages to be a good idea.

I think fathers should decide partners. If there is no father (ex. deceased), than a brother of the father should decide. If there are no brothers, then an uncle.

This kind of thing is still common in India. A couple that elopes risks being killed for dishonoring the family.

Thoughts?

Awar
Sunday, April 25th, 2004, 07:17 AM
I know my family would choose some psycho-bitch from hell for me, so, I have to say that it sounds like a good idea, but the chances are the result will be -miserable people.

Maybe a government matchmaking institution would do the job of choosing OK.

I'm really sure that such choices should be made by very wise people or very informed people. Most regular fathers, brothers and uncles don't give a s**t about Your happiness or the functionality of your life.

There is also a question of 'bad traditions'. Would India be a stronger economic force if it's people were less into their traditions and traditional values.

The arranged marriages are only a component in a culture where everything is perceived as pre-ordained. Don't you think that Hindus would be far better-off if they had a slightly different culture, a culture in which they'd have to learn to for what they need, to fight for appreciation of women, by working and producing and buying like ...say.... an average US citizen.

Sword Brethren
Sunday, April 25th, 2004, 07:23 AM
The more I witness the choice most women make in a partner, the more I think arranged marriages to be a good idea.

I think fathers should decide partners. If there is no father (ex. deceased), than a brother of the father should decide. If there are no brothers, then an uncle.

This kind of thing is still common in India. A couple that elopes risks being killed for dishonoring the family.

Thoughts?
What if the father, brother, or uncle selects a negro? Then what? Do you really want to open another Pandora's box by mandating arranged marriages?

wild_bill
Sunday, April 25th, 2004, 07:26 AM
The more I witness the choice most women make in a partner, the more I think arranged marriages to be a good idea.

I think fathers should decide partners. If there is no father (ex. deceased), than a brother of the father should decide. If there are no brothers, then an uncle.

I don't see traditional arranged marriages coming back anytime soon, but I think parents should definitely help their sons and daughters find good mates. Like-minded familes can have social events where the young people can interact and meet.

For Christians, looking within the church is natural. Even single adults can put the word out that they're looking to marry and I'm sure most priests or pastors would be glad to help out. After all, they always would rather marriages be within the church, so its not like they have no interest in such things. The same would apply in the case of young people of marriage age.

cosmocreator
Sunday, April 25th, 2004, 07:54 AM
I know my family would choose some psycho-bitch from hell for me, so, I have to say that it sounds like a good idea, but the chances are the result will be -miserable people.

Maybe a government matchmaking institution would do the job of choosing OK.

I'm really sure that such choices should be made by very wise people or very informed people. Most regular fathers, brothers and uncles don't give a s**t about Your happiness or the functionality of your life.

There is also a question of 'bad traditions'. Would India be a stronger economic force if it's people were less into their traditions and traditional values.

The arranged marriages are only a component in a culture where everything is perceived as pre-ordained. Don't you think that Hindus would be far better-off if they had a slightly different culture, a culture in which they'd have to learn to for what they need, to fight for appreciation of women, by working and producing and buying like ...say.... an average US citizen.


It was encouraged in NS Germany that men and women should choose the best mate possible to breed a better German. We live in a sick world. I think war makes people sane. Dogma is never good.

Jack
Sunday, April 25th, 2004, 07:56 AM
I don't see traditional arranged marriages coming back anytime soon, but I think parents should definitely help their sons and daughters find good mates. Like-minded familes can have social events where the young people can interact and meet.

For Christians, looking within the church is natural. Even single adults can put the word out that they're looking to marry and I'm sure most priests or pastors would be glad to help out. After all, they always would rather marriages be within the church, so its not like they have no interest in such things. The same would apply in the case of young people of marriage age.

I was about to suggest that a priest could arrange marriages (the couple still makes the decision, but the priest helps it along a bit). I wouldn't have any problem with it.

wild_bill
Sunday, April 25th, 2004, 08:20 AM
I was about to suggest that a priest could arrange marriages (the couple still makes the decision, but the priest helps it along a bit). I wouldn't have any problem with it.

I don't know if I would describe it as the priest "arranging" the marriage. Rather he would likely spread the word to other parishes or ask other clergymen if they have any suitable persons in their congregations. Then maybe pass the info back or even help arrange some social situation where the two could be introduced.

In the Pentecostal churches, it is not uncommon to find young women married off to men several years older. I mean like a 19 year-old woman married to a 25 or 30 year-old man who is also a church member. This probably works out well, since the man is more likely to be established in his career and financially stable, while the women is just beginning her prime childbearing years. Its a good combination for a larger family.

In any case, although many people would rather not admit it, but the fact is the churches are just about the last place in this society were white men can find traditional, family-oriented white women of marriage age who aren't brainwashed with feminism and obsessed with having careers.

rusalka
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 04:11 AM
I know my family would choose some psycho-bitch from hell for me, so, I have to say that it sounds like a good idea, but the chances are the result will be -miserable people.

:rotfl

I'm sure my mom would choose someone who looks like Kevin Costner and my dad would pick someone who looks exactly like himself -and if possible someone who likes the exact same things as he does, being the social animal that he is- so thanks, but no thanks. But then, I have been known to make the most outrageous choices myself. My ideal husband is actually Mr. Darcy (from Pride and Prejudice, of course) but Colin Firth is taken and there's not much of the Georgian England left, I'm afraid. Ah well <insert old fashioned smiley here> ;)

cosmocreator
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 06:40 PM
The real solution is teaching about the races starting in elementary school.

Mac Seafraidh
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 09:10 PM
The real solution is teaching about the races starting in elementary school.
I agree Cos because when my sister was little I heard she said "Why is that person dirty?"(refering to the negro) Living in New England too there was very little at the time, still is but this was probably in Boston.

Strengthandhonour
Monday, April 26th, 2004, 11:23 PM
I was raised up in an enviorment that told the truth. I never had that garbage shoved down my throat that we are all equal and all that humanitarian load of crap.
Arranged marriages are an excellent idea but yet they have so many defects. The main one being killing the freedom of loving someone for who they are and not because your family/priest/etc picked him. Maybe if someday there is some insane computer program that scans your brains for you likes and pairs them up with someone with the same likes and such then it might work ;)

Frigg
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 01:53 AM
My husband and I could find someone for our kids to marry when they grow up, it should be the kids who have the last word tho!

Æmeric
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 02:01 AM
I don't think it would work. Takes Charles & Diana for instance. What might be better is if you raised your children in a way that they would want to marry someone from a similar background like themselves. If they have a positive image of themselves & their heritage, they will want to perpetuate it.

Matamoros
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 03:19 AM
Agreed, I think educating your children and bringing them up in such a way that they want to marry someone from their own background is a better idea than trying to choose their partner for them.

Next World
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 03:47 AM
I have this conversation a lot, it seems.

It all depends upon who is doing the choosing. For example, I wouldn't trust my biological father to choose a spouse for me. My mother would probably be so indecisive that she wouldn't ever arrive at a decision about someone. In our modern society, I think it would serve to be beneficial, but the people who need such decisions made for them would not be in agreeement or really just shouldn't reproduce whatsoever.

If people are brought up in a surrounding that is accepting of Natural law, they will choose the right kind of person.

Rhydderch
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 05:47 AM
While I certainly don't agree with the idea of a spouse being chosen and the son/daughter having no choice in the matter (which often occurs in some countries), I think a kind of arranged marriage is perfectly reasonable, in fact sometimes even preferable.

Parents are (in a well-functioning family at least) often likely to know as much, if not more, about who is best suited to their child as the child himself. Indeed an infatuated youth isn't necessarily going to be the most objective one about whether he should marry the particular person.

And I certainly believe that the parents (indeed the whole family) should be taken into account in a marriage, not just the couple themselves.

I've heard of plenty of happy marriages in which the couple were well-suited, which were originally the doing of the parents. It's not as if parents have no understanding of their children's nature and inclinations (well, no doubt it sometimes is :D).

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 06:20 AM
I think it sounds a lot better in theory than in practice.

sophia
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 03:48 PM
I know and trust my dad enough and he knows and trusts me enough that if we were in a society which had arranged marriages I wouldn't worry. I'd probably be a bit happy about being relieved of the trouble of looking for someone too.

But many people do not have the luxury of having such great parents and such great relationships with their parents as me, so I don't think its a good idea on a cultural level.

mischak
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 04:38 PM
It's quite ridiculous and archaic if you ask me, it should never be the norm.

Sigurd
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 04:58 PM
It's quite ridiculous and archaic if you ask me, it should never be the norm.

But the exact opposite - marrying just out of love and nothing else - rarely works out positively enough either. What would be equally important is that both parties to the marriage have similar goals, interests and outlooks on life, otherwise it is bound to no longer work as soon as that pink cloud of fresh love has vanished. As for arranging marriages - I am more for a destructive rather than constructive parental right: They cannot make their children marry a certain person, but they should be able to veto some marriages. ;)

mischak
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 05:18 PM
But the exact opposite - marrying just out of love and nothing else - rarely works out positively enough either.

I guess you're not a Beatles' fan :p


What would be equally important is that both parties to the marriage have similar goals, interests and outlooks on life, otherwise it is bound to no longer work as soon as that pink cloud of fresh love has vanished.

That's why it's a good idea to not marry someone until you've actually dated/lived with them for a substantial amount of time, shared finances, talked about long term goals, etc (I think at least a few years)..


As for arranging marriages - I am more for a destructive rather than constructive parental right: They cannot make their children marry a certain person, but they should be able to veto some marriages. ;)

Children shouldn't be marrying, as far as people making decisions for their children, adults still need to make decisions for themselves. Raising your children with standards and positive ideals makes for good decision making in adulthood a lot more likely. The only time I could support the parents right to "veto" a marriage is if there is abuse by a partner, seeing as women tend to get 'stuck' in abusive relationships

Jäger
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 05:26 PM
Raising your children with standards and positive ideals makes for good decision making in adulthood a lot more likely. The only time I could support the parents right to "veto" a marriage is if there is abuse by a partner, seeing as women tend to get 'stuck' in abusive relationships
It's a matter of life style. If you intend to live individually, then you will make your decisions individually. If you live in a clan, then the clan will automatically voice its opinion.

I agree with Sigurd, neither arranged marriages without consent of the bride/groom nor totaly individual decisions would be good for a society.
The truth lies in between :D

Sigurd
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 05:48 PM
Children shouldn't be marrying,

Where did I talk of child marriages. What I meant with "children" is people's sons and daughters. Remember that even when you are old and frail, your children will still be your children, even if they're over forty. ;)

Next World
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007, 07:44 PM
They cannot make their children marry a certain person, but they should be able to veto some marriages. ;)I respect a parental veto. In fact, I respect my mother, my older brother, my foster sister, and my best guy friend in this way, as well, and I know some of them feel the same about me. I wouldn't date a guy if for some reason my entire household family and my best friend had a problem with him. In fact, before this previous relationship, there was a guy who came around for me who did have romantic intentions for me, who my mother and my brother both thought was a real scumbag. I have to say that I'm glad I trusted them on it.

Yet again, in our society, and especially in the case of a lot of ethnically concious people, the parental veto is only really a good idea if your parents have respect for who you are as an individual, and you have respect for them and for Tradition.

A relationship which is selfish isn't a sustainable relationship. Truly, I couldn't give a rat's butt about what most people think about the men I choose or choose not to date (Prior mentioned scumbag likes to tell me that my current is a scumbag, even though he doesn't know him. :rolleyes:), but when it comes to my family and my real friends, I do take their opinions as if they have merit.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, September 26th, 2007, 02:51 PM
It's quite ridiculous and archaic if you ask meDo you mean to say that one of your reasons for rejecting the idea is that it has been a common custom in the past, stretching way back in time?

Would you reject it even if it was a common practise now, and had developed more recently?

Freydis
Wednesday, September 26th, 2007, 09:13 PM
I think that some choice on part of the woman should be allowed, at least. ^^

Imperator X
Wednesday, September 26th, 2007, 09:32 PM
I have always been for a certain type of arranged marriage, I may employ a marriage broker myself, I like E. Indian women (and failing that, Germanic and Hellenic Mediterranean women) and obviously, arranged marriage is common in India. I always thought that if done under the right conditions, arranged marriage is not only practical but saves people a lot of unnecessary MISERY.

The old saying goes, (to a man who has been dumped and hurts like the morphine-withdrawal that it is,) "Another girl will break your heart and you'll forget all about her" and then the cycle continues... Who the Hell wants THAT!!?

Our idea of a "love marriage" as it is called in India, only existed in the West since the late 18th century. With the ensurance that one will get married, one is free to stop obsessing and chasing things that are frivolous and fleeting, and focus on accumulating knowledge and skills necessary to providing a good life for the family unit.

SwordOfTheVistula
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 03:15 AM
With the ensurance that one will get married, one is free to stop obsessing and chasing things that are frivolous and fleeting, and focus on accumulating knowledge and skills necessary to providing a good life for the family unit.

You don't need arranged marriages for that. Just wait until you are finished with school/job training (if a man) or are ready to have children (if female) before looking for relationships. If society/parents did that, it would be about as beneficial as arranged marriages without a lot of the drawbacks.

Jäger
Thursday, September 27th, 2007, 09:35 AM
Just wait until you are finished with school/job training (if a man) or are ready to have children (if female) before looking for relationships.
You can't stop looking for a female, it's instinct.
You can control it, however it takes effort, and it does distract.

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, September 28th, 2007, 03:57 AM
Well yes, and the ability for self control and to put off instant gratification for future gain is what separates us from the other races.

Gefjon
Sunday, May 25th, 2008, 06:08 PM
Well had my folks arranged my marriage I'd be married to a German-American now. My folks didn't accept my marriage at frist, but they learned to deal with it and even got along with my hubby when they saw he wasn't so "alien" to Germanic American culture as they had assumed. ;)

I'd say nope, my opinion of having a partner imposed on the kids without that they know each other and stuff ain't a bright one, however I think parents should have the right to impose some rules on their kids marriages like we're gonna do to our kids should we have any: the rule would be they can only marry a white guy/girl who is racially and culturally aware. Up to them who it is, but s/he should fit those standards.

Mrs. Lyfing
Sunday, May 25th, 2008, 07:28 PM
I think arranged marriage is just another way for someone to control another. I understand other cultures are different but even then...shouldn't two people experience meeting, and falling in love, and then marriage.

I think the more rights of living life one wants to take away from the people, the further down the toilet bowl we go...

Marriage is not an arrangement it is an agreement between two people who love each other.

You should respect family or friends opinions sometimes with dating or marriage but only you know what you want, and most who want it bad enough will do anything to have it. No matter what mommy says. ;)

Lyfing
Monday, May 26th, 2008, 02:14 AM
Here's me "quoting" Joseph Campbell talking about love...


MOYERS: Love is such a vast subject that -- well, if I came to you and said, "Let's talk about love," where would you begin?

CAMPBELL: I'd begin with the troubadours in the twelfth century.

MOYERS: And who were they?

CAMPBELL: The troubadours were the nobility of Provence and then later other parts of France and Europe. In Germany they're known as the Minnesingers, the singers of love. Minne is the medieval German word for love.

MOYERS: Were they the poets of their age?

CAMPBELL: They were poets of a certain character, yes. The period for the troubadours is the twelfth century. The whole troubadour tradition was extinguished in Provence in the so-called Albigensian Crusade of 1209, which was launched by Pope Innocent III, and which is regarded as one of the most monstrous crusades in the history of Europe.
The troubadours became associated with the Manichean heresy of the Albigensians that was rampant at that time -- though the Albigensian movement was really a protest against the corruption of the medieval clergy. So the troubadours and their transformation of the idea of love got mixed up in religious life in a very complicated way.

MOYERS: The transformation of love? What do you mean?

CAMPBELL: The troubadours were very much inter-
ested in the psychology of love. And they're the first ones in the West who really thought of love the way we do now -- as a person-to-person relationship.

MOYERS: What had it been before that?

CAMPBELL: Before that, love was simply Eros, the god who excites you to sexual desire. This is not the experience of falling in love the way the troubadours understood it. Eros is much more impersonal than falling in love. You see, people didn't know about Amor. Amor is something personal that the troubadours recognized. Eros and Agape are impersonal loves.

MOYERS: Explain.

CAMPBELL: Eros is a biological urge. It's the zeal of the organs for each other. The personal factor doesn't matter.

MOYERS: And Agape?

CAMPBELL: Agape is love thy neighbor as thyself -- spiritual love. It doesn't matter who the neighbor is.

MOYERS: Now, this is not passion in the sense that Eros mandates it, this is compassion, I would think.

CAMPBELL: Yes, it is compassion. It is a heart opening. But it is not individuated as Amor is.

MOYERS: Agape is a religious impulse.

CAMPBELL: Yes. But Amor could become a religious impulse, too. The troubadours recognized Amor as the highest spiritual experience.
You see, the experience of Eros is a kind of seizure. In India, the god of love is a big, vigorous youth with a bow and a quiver of arrows. The names of the arrows are "Death-bringing Agony" and "Open Up" and so forth. Really, he just drives this thing into you so that it's a total physiological, psychological explosion.
Then the other love, Agape, is a love of the neighbor as thyself. Again, it doesn't matter who the person is. It is your neighbor, and you must have that kind of love.
But with Amor we have a purely personal ideal. The kind of seizure that comes from the meeting of the eyes, as they say in the troubadour tradition, is a person-to-person experience

MOYERS: There's a poem in one of your books about this meeting of the eyes: "So through the eyes love attains the heart. . ."

CAMPBELL: That's completely contrary to everything the Church stood for. It's a personal, individual experience, and I think it's the essential thing that's great about the West and that makes it different from all other traditions I know.

MOYERS: So the courage to love became the courage to affirm one's own experience against tradition -- the tradition of the Church. Why was that important in the evolution of the West?

CAMPBELL: It was important in that it gave the West this accent on the individual, that one should have faith in his experience and not simply mouth terms handed down to him by others. It stresses the validity of the individual's experience of what humanity is, what life is, what values are, against the monolithic system. The monolithic system is a machine system: every machine works like every other machine that's come out of the same shop.

MOYERS: What did you mean when you wrote that the beginning of romantic love in the West was "libido over credo"?

CAMPBELL: Well, the credo says "I believe," and I believe not only in the laws, but I believe that these laws were instituted by God, and there's no arguing with God. These laws are a heavy weight on me, and disobeying these is sin and has to do with my eternal character.

MOYERS: That's the credo?

CAMPBELL: That's the credo. You believe, and then you go to confession, and you run down through the list of sins, and you count yourself against those, and instead of going into the priest and saying, "Bless me, father, for I have been great this week," you meditate on the sins, and in meditating on the sins, then you really become a sinner in your life. It's a condemnation, actually, of the will to life, that's what the credo is.

MOYERS: And libido?

CAMPBELL: The libido is the impulse to life. It comes from the heart

MOYERS: And the heart is --

CAMPBELL: -- the heart is the organ of opening up to somebody else. That's the human quality as opposed to the animal qualities, which have to do with self-interest.

MOYERS: So you're talking about romantic love as opposed to lust, or passion, or a general religious sentiment?

CAMPBELL: Yes. You know, the usual marriage in traditional cultures was arranged for by the families. It wasn't a person-to-person decision at all. In India to this day, you have columns in the newspapers of advertisements for wives that are put in by marriage brokers. I remember, in one family that I knew there, the daughter was going to marry. She had never seen the young man she was going to marry, and she would ask her brothers, "Is he tall? Is he dark? Is he light? What?"
In the Middle Ages, that was the kind of marriage that was sanctified by the Church. And so the troubadour idea of real person-to-person Amor was very dangerous.

MOYERS: Because it was heresy?

CAMPBELL: Not only heresy, it was adultery, what might be called spiritual adultery. Since the marriages were all arranged by society, the love that came from the meeting of the eyes was of a higher spiritual value.
For example, in the Tristan romance, Isolde is engaged to marry King Mark. They have never seen each other. Tristan is sent to fetch Isolde to Mark. Isolde's mother prepares a love potion, so that the two who are to be married will have real love for each other. And this love potion is put in the charge of the nurse, who is to go with Isolde. The love potion is left unguarded, and Tristan and Isolde think it's wine, and they drink it. They're overtaken with love. But they had already been in love, they just didn't know it. The love potion just touched it off. One remembers that kind of experience from one's own youth.
The problem from the troubadour point of view is that King Mark and Isolde, who are to be married, are not really qualified for love. They have never even seen each other. The true marriage is the marriage that springs from the recognition of identity in the other, and the physical union is simply the sacrament in which that is confirmed. It doesn't start the other way around, with the physical interest that then becomes spiritualized. It starts from the spiritual impact of love -- Amor.

MOYERS: Christ spoke of "the adulterer at heart," the violation of the union that takes place spiritually, in the mind and heart.

CAMPBELL: And every marriage was such a violation when it was arranged by the society and not by the heart. That's the sense of courtly love in the Middle Ages. It is in direct contradiction to the way of the Church. The word AMOR spelt backwards is ROMA, the Roman Catholic Church, which was justifying marriages that were simply political and social in their character. And so came this movement validating individual choice, what I call following your bliss.
But there's danger, too, of course. In the Tristan romance, when the young couple has drunk their love potion and Isolde's nurse realizes what has happened, she goes to Tristan and says, "You have drunk your death." And Tristan says, "By my death, do you mean this pain of love?" -- because that was one of the main points, that one should feel the sickness of love. There's no possible fulfillment in this world of that identity one is experiencing. Tristan says, "If by my death, you mean this agony of love, that is my life. If by my death, you mean the punishment that we are to suffer if discovered, I accept that. And if by my death, you mean eternal punishment in the fires of hell, I accept that, too." Now, that's big stuff.

MOYERS: Especially for medieval Catholics, who believed in a literal hell. So what's the significance of what Tristan was saying?

CAMPBELL: What he was saying is that his love is bigger even than death and pain, than anything. This is the affirmation of the pain of life in a big way.

MOYERS: And he would choose this pain of love now even though it might mean everlasting pain and damnation in hell.

CAMPBELL: Any life career that you choose in following your bliss should be chosen with that sense -- that nobody can frighten me off from this thing. And no matter what happens, this is the validation of my life and action.

MOYERS: And in choosing love, too?

CAMPBELL: In choosing love, too.

MOYERS: You wrote once that the point about hell, as about heaven, is that, when you're there, you're in your proper place, which is finally where you want to be.

CAMPBELL: That was Bernard Shaw's idea, and really Dante's idea, also. The punishment in hell is that you have for eternity that which you thought you wanted on earth.

MOYERS: Tristan wanted his love, he wanted his bliss, and he was willing to suffer for it.

CAMPBELL: Yes. But then William Blake says in his wonderful series of aphorisms The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, "As I was walking among the fires of hell. . . which to angels look like torment" -- that is to say, for the people who are there, who are not angels, it's not the fire of pain, it's the fire of delight.

MOYERS: I remember in Dante's Inferno, as Dante is looking on the great lovers of history in hell, he sees Helen, and he sees Cleopatra, and he sees Tristan. What's the significance of that?

CAMPBELL: Dante is taking the Church's attitude that this is hell, and that they're suffering there. Remember, he sees the two young lovers from the Italy of his day, Paolo and Francesca. Francesca had a love affair with Paolo, the brother of her husband. And Dante, like a social scientist, says, "Darling, how did this happen? What brought this about?" And then come the most famous lines in Dante. Francesca says that Paolo and she were sitting under a tree in the garden reading the story of Lancelot and Guinevere. "And when we read of their first kiss, we looked at each other and read no more in the book that day." And that was the beginning of their fall.
That this wonderful experience should be condemned as a sin is the thing the troubadour just says no to. Love is the meaning of life -- it is the high point of life.

MOYERS: Is that what Wagner meant in his great opera on Tristan and Isolde, when he said, "In this world let me have my world, to be damned with it or to be saved"?

CAMPBELL: Yes, that's exactly what Tristan said.

MOYERS: Meaning, I want my love, I want my life.

CAMPBELL: This is my life, yes. And I'm willing to take any kind of pain for it.

MOYERS: And this took a courage, didn't it?

CAMPBELL: Doesn't it? Even to think of it.

MOYERS: "Doesn't it" -- you put it in the present tense.

CAMPBELL: Yes.

MOYERS: Even now?

CAMPBELL: Yes.

MOYERS: You have said that the point of all these pioneers in love is that they decided to be the author and means of their own self-fulfillment, that the realization of love is to be nature's noblest work, and that they were going to take their wisdom from their own experience and not from dogma, politics, or any current concepts of social good. And is this the beginning of the romantic idea of the Western individual taking matters into his or her own hands?

CAMPBELL: Absolutely. You can see examples in Oriental stories of this kind of thing, but it did not become a social system. It has now become the ideal of love in the Western world.

MOYERS: Love from one's own experience, taking one's own experience as the source of wisdom?

CAMPBELL: Yes, that's the individual. The best part of the Western tradition has included a recognition of and respect for the individual as a living entity. The function of the society is to cultivate the individual. It is not the function of the individual to support society.

The Power of Myth

Good Day,
-Lyfing

Thrymheim
Monday, May 26th, 2008, 05:17 AM
Of course you can't really have a culture of arranged marriage in a place where women have any rights, because if they don't like it they will just run off, the same of course applies for men.

I don't think it is a good idea, my parents wouldn't have a clue as to who I should marry, I've not lived with them for nearly 9 years in fact for all of my adult life contact has been once maybe twice a year, how are they meant to pick someone who is suitable? My grandmother hates my stepfather, and my mother has been happily with him for 24 years now so I'm glad she didn't have a veto on that one. Interestingly my great grandmother wouldn't let him in the house! even our friend from Ghana was allowed in, albeit if he used the back door and stayed in the kitchen.

I think that people should not be allowed to marry until they are at least 25 and have lived with their partner for a minimum of 5 years, with the latter point being the most important.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, May 26th, 2008, 07:14 AM
I think that people should not be allowed to marry until they are at least 25 and have lived with their partner for a minimum of 5 years, with the latter point being the most important.

That would be unworkable entirely, the average age for marriage is about 25. Especially requiring women to wait until age 25, that would make our birthrate even lower than it already is. Living 5 years together is even more ridiculous, if you've live together for a year or two and still don't know if you want to get married or not, something is wrong

Talan
Monday, May 26th, 2008, 07:31 AM
That would be unworkable entirely, the average age for marriage is about 25.

Isn't it also true that the average age for marriage was 28 up until the 20th century?

Thrymheim
Monday, May 26th, 2008, 07:54 AM
That would be unworkable entirely, the average age for marriage is about 25. Especially requiring women to wait until age 25, that would make our birthrate even lower than it already is. Living 5 years together is even more ridiculous, if you've live together for a year or two and still don't know if you want to get married or not, something is wrong

No it would hopefully just stop some of the undesirables breeding early. You must live together and for much longer than a year I lived with my ex for 6 years then we decided it wasn't for us, I'm glad we waited it saved an expencive divorce.

equally I doubt the average age is 25 will look it up....

looked it up;
The average age for first marriages in England and Wales is 31 for men and 29 for women.
www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/couples/life_whymarry.shtml

MockTurtle
Monday, May 26th, 2008, 07:56 AM
Isn't it also true that the average age for marriage was 28 up until the 20th century?

It depends which part of the world you're talking about. In the US, the average age at first marriage reached it's lowest peak around 1960, and this was because of the post-War economic boom. At that time, average age for males was about 22, for females it was about 20. In 1900, the average age was about 2 years higher for each sex (i.e. 24 for males/22 for females). In the West, the average age has fluctuated, usually according to economic trends, with marriages occurring later in times of relative lack of upward mobility and financial security. Of course, cultural factors are important too, some of which probably play a role in the figures today.

In the US, the current average age is about 27.5 for men and about 25.5 for women. In Europe, the current figures are higher for both sexes.



It's a matter of life style. If you intend to live individually, then you will make your decisions individually. If you live in a clan, then the clan will automatically voice its opinion.

I agree with Sigurd, neither arranged marriages without consent of the bride/groom nor totaly individual decisions would be good for a society.

I agree, too.

IMO, today there is too much "freedom" and not enough sense of cultural and racial duty. When you completely remove any hint of duty to a marital relationship, it is almost certainly going to fail because it has become completely based on selfishness. This is why divorce occurs so frequently, because the minute someone realizes that they aren't getting EXACTLY what they want for themselves, they just abandon the situation altogether. This isn't what sustained marriages in the West in previous ages. Apart from economics, there were much stronger social pressures to work things out and keep things intact.

Now that economic dependency has largely been removed, cultural and racial duty is probably more important than ever. Self-obsession and hedonism -- these things do not make successful marital relationships.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Monday, May 26th, 2008, 09:46 AM
My great-grandfather (Yorkshire) was the product of an arranged marriage between two first cousins, with the purpose of combining the wealth of the two families, Middleton (jewellers, farmers) and Burton (tailors). The shops they owned were directly opposite one another in the city of Chester. As was the tradition of those times:

http://lh3.ggpht.com/joff.tanner/RueIpOlbr4I/AAAAAAAAAio/1cG5GvYJ5e0/DSCN2142.JPG?

My gitano family, who were spread across Spain, Portugal and France would without doubt have had to arrange marriages to preserve themselves. This tradition was most probably only broken upon my grandfather's marriage to my granny, whose own family had maintained their German) family connections between Poland and Austria for at least a century. She even had distant relatives in England, which was why she was sent here to school after WWII. Do not tell me that there were not a few marriages arranged in her family also!

My girlfriend's grandmother's (an Orthodox Jewish convert) second marriage was an arranged marriage to a German-American Jew. It was arranged through her synagogue after the timely death of her first husband who was much older than her. My girlfriend's mother nearly had an arranged marriage herself.

After a few years the relationship between a man and a woman is, hormonally speaking, exactly the same in an arranged marriage as in a love match. ;)

Imperator X
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008, 01:42 AM
Nov 17th 2008

By Lauren Fritsky (http://www.lemondrop.com/bloggers/lauren-fritsky/)We don't know about you, but "arranged marriage" makes us think of Shakespeare characters or old Bollywood movies. It seems outdated and totally out of place in the Western world, right? Maybe not.

The book "First Comes Marriage (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416561722/?tag=aol-asylum-20)" counters the perception of such unions. They're still commonplace in some Eastern cultures and among some members of those cultures who are now second- and third-generation Americans. Author Reva Seth, who was born to an arranged Indian couple, thinks arranged marriages have a place in the West (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95714225).

Surprising Stats on Who's Doing It
Seth interviewed 300 women in arranged marriages from the U.S., the U.K. and Canada. And get this: In addition to being educated and career-oriented, most of them say they're actually happy (http://www.tangomag.com/20085574/what-arranged-marriage-can-teach-us.html). And, according to Seth -- who didn't have an arranged marriage but became engaged to her hubby after seven dates -- negotiated nuptials have about a 7 percent divorce rate, way lower than the 40 to 45 percent rate among U.S. unions.

To read more about why arranged marriages just might work, click here (http://www.lemondrop.com/2008/11/17/planning-for-prince-charming/).

To be sure, arranged marriages are not forced marriages. Blame mainstream culture for that misinterpretation. Actually, Seth says the only positive television portrayal she found on arranged marriage was of Apu the Kwik-E-Mart clerk on The Simpsons (D-oh!). So scratch that image of Romeo and Juliet from your head.

(Read more about Reva Seth's rules for love -- and how they worked for her -- below)




The author says using some of the planning aspects of arranged marriage can help anyone find a suitable life partner. Her rationale: Most of the people you chat up at the bar aren't marriage material. Yet women have fallen into a pattern of waiting to meet their Prince Charming there. (And then there's that term Prince Charming itself, which is also rubbish.)

She says the modern-marriage ideal of a finding the perfect, romantic partner isn't realistic. "Growing up with the myth of rescue is an influence -- the idea that somewhere out there is our Mr. Right, and one day he will just fall into our lives and 'fix' everything that frustrates us, from the job we feel stuck in to the rent that needs to be paid," she told Lemondrop.

Make Your Own Arranged Marriage

Seth advises women to be more proactive and to arm themselves with a checklist of qualities they truly covet. Doing so, she says, can keep women from dating the same duds over and over. It's sort of like how you approach buying a house -- if you want a wrap-around porch and a big back yard, only look at place with those qualities, and and never settle for less. In her book, Seth helps readers do this with her "Seven Secrets" concept.

"The power of a 'marriage musts' list is that it helps you realize that unless you plan ahead, the men you date and hook up with can never end up being the men you marry. Recognizing the pattern of falling for the cute bad boy at the pub is the first step to breaking it." Since hooking up is often based on sheer lust, many women go for guys they're attracted to -- not necessarily compatible with. But it's compatibility that keeps people together over time.

Yes, that means considering partners who you aren't totally lusting for right away. "One women said, 'The difference is that a love marriage is like a boiling pot that cools down over time, while an arranged marriage is like a cold pot that gradually comes to a boil,'" says Seth. "This idea that couples become increasingly intimate and attracted over time seemed to apply to many of the women I spoke with."

[B]It Worked for Her
After doing dozens of interviews, Seth realized that she could make better choices in her own dating life -- about who she was dating and how she was going about it. With her new standard in tow, she quickly realized that her now-husband was the one, and the two were engaged on their seventh date.

"It wasn't love (or lust) at first sight," she writes in the book. "It was actually the result of both of us having figured out what we were looking for in a partner, being at the same life stage, recognizing that the other person had the potential to have the qualities we wanted and then, as my husband describes it, 'exchanging over a hundred thousand words on e-mail' to confirm it."

The two have now been married for over four years and have a son.

Another Vote for Re-Thinking Love

Is Seth onto something? Maybe, says (http://www.tinatessina.com/) Tina B. Tessina, Ph.D., a licensed psychotherapist in California. "I believe relationship decisions should be made from the neck up as well as from the neck down. Re-adopting some arranged marriage attitudes would help do this."

Of course, if you're not itching to slip into a wedding gown just yet, having some old-fashioned romps is still OK. But Dr. Tessina cautions against getting frisky too soon with a potential mate. "Having sex too soon clouds your judgment and makes it difficult to make an intelligent choice of partner," she says.

To read an excerpt of "First Comes Marriage," click here (http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?pid=630383&tab=65&agid=2).
Source: AOL News http://www.lemondrop.com/2008/11/17/planning-for-prince-charming/

I've always thought arranged marriage was practical. In India they match partners based on personality traits and Vedic astrological compatibility.

QuietWind
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008, 02:12 AM
I have always been a fan of arranged marriages. I agree with the woman in the article. The idea of love to me is similar to how she describes it when she says:

while an arranged marriage is like a cold pot that gradually comes to a boil,'" says Seth.

Although, I usually describe it more like a garden.

rainman
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008, 02:39 AM
It is a good idea as long as it doesn't become to silly or out of hand. It is good to shift the folks idea of marriage to what it once was- a sacred duty to the folk and a committment to the community. Not just something selfish that is supposed to always feel good. At any rate I think the long term happiness is greater when people start living for the folk and family rather than self. This is why we have so many divorces, broken families and other problems.

I also find it silly that people think someone is meant for them or they are perfect matches. I've never seen a perfect marriage. It takes work.

In light of that it would probably be more convienient to have an arranged marriage and it could also be used to better serve the purpose of Eugenics.

Nachtengel
Thursday, November 20th, 2008, 05:22 PM
I think as a parent I have the right to demand from my son to marry a racially aware German woman, but I am not going to pick her for him and force her upon him. I may make a suggestion to him, but who he marries is his choice, not mine. It is, after all, not me who is going to spend time with the lady. It's such an antiquated habit and I only have to think of how it worked in the Middle Ages to frown upon it. Kings and nobles married out of obligation, without testing to see whether they would get along with their wives. Then they would sleep around with whatever woman pleased them and have many bastards, while the wife would be charged with adultery and executed if she sought emotional or sexual refuge elsewhere. Not an ideal family life that was. Arranged marriages belong in the Middle Ages and the Muslim world and that's where they should stay.

Alice
Thursday, November 20th, 2008, 06:55 PM
Ideally, parents would know their child's temperment and preferences better than anybody else, so their role in helping to select a child's spouse would be most helpful. If this knowledge is coupled with love and genuine concern for a son or daughter's welfare and emotional well-being, rather than merely a desire for a gain in power or status, it has the potential to be especially successful. Of course, as someone previously mentioned, the son or daughter would retain the right to veto the choice. ;)

Hanna
Thursday, November 20th, 2008, 07:31 PM
What a strange topic! Arrange marriage are we barbarians, without any sort of civilized thinking? Yes, as a parents, or a brother, or sister we could always give some advices,not marrying someone of our own kind. But please arrange marriage sounds totally retarded to me. You could always give a sound advice, but ultimately the right to marriage is in the hand of the individuals. Please don't tell me its a liberal view, because what separate the whites and the others is choosing the right partner, which involves making wise decisions.

Patrioten
Thursday, November 20th, 2008, 09:04 PM
I think parents should have a say in which partner their child chooses to marry and start a family with, and should definately be in a position to reject candidates that are obviously inept (criminals, drug users, unemployed hobos, foreigners etc.). It's about the family legacy, the old generation is responsible for ensuring that the family name is in good hands once they are gone from this earth, their opinion should weigh heavily. If this practise in some cases would lead to something like parental tyranny, then that is unfortunate, but it would be preferable over today's anything goes attitude which is directly harmful to society.

Arranged marriages is I think taking it too far, I can't see how that practise would result in stronger marriages in this day and age. But by all means, more parental and grandparental involvement and influence.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, April 8th, 2009, 08:47 PM
What are your thoughts? Those marriages for money, name, social status, citizenship, reconciliation between families and so on.

triedandtru
Wednesday, April 8th, 2009, 08:51 PM
Although it is not always the case, I think positive and preferably romantic feelings for the other person should be the main factor in a marriage.

rainman
Thursday, April 9th, 2009, 12:40 AM
Sounds good to me, hook me up. Feelings develop naturally as part of social bonds and similarity in various ways.

The self centered nature of relationships today is why so many of them are falling apart, end in divorce etc. Marriage is not only to each other but to the community, as a duty to the children etc.

Blood_Axis
Thursday, April 9th, 2009, 11:33 AM
I don't believe in the sanctity of marriage in the religious or civil sense (in fact I consider it only to be a piece of paper), but I believe in the sanctity of two individuals being together for the sake of love and family.

It is very sad when such a union is reduced to a social/financial transaction. Really sad.
It shows that we have come to a point where people are so materialistic that even their most private affairs have to be governed by such principles.

I wonder if those people find any joy in their lives, and if money can substitute for the absence of love and compassion... :|

rainman
Thursday, April 9th, 2009, 10:59 PM
It's not that. It's that marriage fullfills several functions. Sometimes its easier to just have something arranged or make an agreement with somebody based on such. This tradition was common in say classic Rome and Greece. In fact in the old culture it marriage was often the duty of someone of noble birth, even in Germanic societies. You married someone who was of a certain family or background as a sacred duty to your folk to continue the bloodline and serve your nation and people.

You don't get to choose your brother, sister, cousins etc. but you love them the same. Just because such a marriage wasn't based on your own feelings towards someone prior to marriage doesn't mean that love doesn't exist in the majority of these marriages. Less of these marriages end in divorce as well which is interesting.

velvet
Thursday, April 9th, 2009, 11:16 PM
That is because the people basically 'dont care so much about each other' than in those based on love. And in most cases (we had this here too, when I was younger I knew some older people who were arranged, in Poland/Russia it is quite widespread even today), if they are lucky, they become friends, which maybe is the reason why this is more stabile.

I know about one case though where the mother left the family as soon as the children were old enough. She had stayed her duty and then left. Maybe just one case of collateral damage, but I guess also an outside chooser can make mistakes and it is no garuantee neither.

Anfang
Thursday, April 9th, 2009, 11:22 PM
I don't believe in the sanctity of marriage in the religious or civil sense (in fact I consider it only to be a piece of paper), but I believe in the sanctity of two individuals being together for the sake of love and family.

It is very sad when such a union is reduced to a social/financial transaction. Really sad.
It shows that we have come to a point where people are so materialistic that even their most private affairs have to be governed by such principles.

I wonder if those people find any joy in their lives, and if money can substitute for the absence of love and compassion... :|

I tend to agree, but we must also make a note that our ancient Germanic and other European ancestors did that all the time.

I think for a long time it amounted to "buying women", and a Germanic community of the future should not have this.

Quo vadis
Friday, April 10th, 2009, 10:26 AM
I know about one case though where the mother left the family as soon as the children were old enough. She had stayed her duty and then left.

In the case of my parents, who married out of love for each other, my mother left the "family" (the notion hardly applies here) already before the children were old enough. There was no concept of duty in the first place. I am not sure if convenience marriages could really have been worse than the romantic hell that we have today.

Given that so many people remain single these days because they can't find a partner to fall in love with, I believe people should try marriage with a partner even if they are not madly in love with him or her, not for money or social status, but for the purpose of founding a family.

Blood_Axis
Friday, April 10th, 2009, 10:41 AM
Rainman and Anfang, in the above post I made I do not consider arranged marriages and marriages of convenience to be synonymous.

Arranged marriages are a tradition, whereas when I hear "convenience marriages" the thought of emancipated, gold digging women who're after a man's wealth and social status come to mind.
I personally think there's a vast difference... :)

Haereticus
Friday, April 10th, 2009, 11:45 AM
I don't believe in the sanctity of marriage in the religious or civil sense (in fact I consider it only to be a piece of paper), but I believe in the sanctity of two individuals being together for the sake of love and family.

It is very sad when such a union is reduced to a social/financial transaction. Really sad.
It shows that we have come to a point where people are so materialistic that even their most private affairs have to be governed by such principles.

I wonder if those people find any joy in their lives, and if money can substitute for the absence of love and compassion... :|
In my view marriage is a public statement, it is a public declaration and request for family and public endorsement and support for that union. This declaration is for the benefit of society and particularly any children of that union. The current situation and legislation, as it exists in the UK, has become a joke. The transgression and abuse of that wider, public, endorsement of marriage, in the form of adultery, is completely disregarded and never punished. Whilst I don't approve of stoning to death of adulterers, financial penalties and other punishment should be implemented for breaking this oath and contract. This would not preclude a man and woman living together as 'husband' and 'wife', nor would it preclude divorce, if no other way could be found, but marriage should be taken much more seriously.

The fact that the marriage oath and contract is no longer taken seriously is just another of the many growing examples of our petty individualistic and hedonistic society. So-called 'gay marriage' is another example of the undermining and devaluing of the institution of marriage.

__

Sigurd
Friday, April 10th, 2009, 12:11 PM
I'm somewhat with Blood Axis on this one: There is a huge difference between arranged marriages and convenience marriages - and arranged marriage which serves a purpose to the community or the families involved is a model which isn't automatically to be defeated.

Convenience marriages in order to increase the social standing of yourself or your family however are perhaps not the best thing since sliced bread. Unlike traditional arranged marriages, they tend to be more one-sided and self-centred than these traditional arranged marriages.

As such, arranged marriage per se is not contemptible, for social convenience it is. Even then, I believe for myself neither to be applicable: Even though I consider social standing and a good family background to be a factor in deciding whether to settle down with a woman or not, I perhaps could not marry a woman I do not love, so for myself I'm still all for the "marriage from love". :)

TheGreatest
Friday, April 10th, 2009, 02:57 PM
I'll say the whole institution has become degenerate thanks to corrupting values in entertainment.

velvet
Friday, April 10th, 2009, 03:09 PM
In the case of my parents, who married out of love for each other, my mother left the "family" (the notion hardly applies here) already before the children were old enough. There was no concept of duty in the first place. I am not sure if convenience marriages could really have been worse than the romantic hell that we have today.

Given that so many people remain single these days because they can't find a partner to fall in love with, I believe people should try marriage with a partner even if they are not madly in love with him or her, not for money or social status, but for the purpose of founding a family.

As I said, when a marriage got arranged the best thing that could happen to the couple is that they become friends. Love is a devil and a one with a not that stabile emotional basis. You know about the toothpaste tube as reasons for a divorce. This only happens I guess when one or both care too much about each other, some sort of mad love that actually has no room for personal freedom but the deep wish to establish a total (people tend to call it lovely) equality/unity of two loving souls. An ideal that never can be real. So the expectations maybe are too high, but I'm not sure if 'individualism' can be, in full responsibility, blamed for this.

Quite the opposite in certain contextes I'd say. There are things that are done together and there are things that belong to the individual, say hobbies, interests, whatever. The latter only works when the other lets you the freedom to follow your own interests without expecting you to do everything together. That becomes 'loving each other to death' at a certain point.

I guess that in arranged marriages (not convenience marriages) this part works better, simply because the expectations are not based in idealised, romantic love and so the reasons for arguments are lesser.


Convenience marriages on the other hand, specially when it comes to things like getting citizenship or something I'd rather call fraud, in terms of to both involved as well as to the society. It contradicts the idea of marriage itself and also is only made to trick out the laws. I cant, in general, say that convenience marriage are a good thing, as they are, like Sigurd said, quite one-sided.


When you say 'people should try (to make the arrangement themselve?)' then you expect the both involved to see it from the pragmatic point (only?)? Wouldnt it result in another (over-)idealised viewpoint? To strip out any individualistic thing of the relation and only view it from the point of 'optimal breed' or merit to the (in modern times non-existent) community? Hmm, this would turn into altruism, wouldnt it? Dont know, maybe I got you wrong here ;)

Quo vadis
Friday, April 10th, 2009, 07:55 PM
I confused "convenience marriage" with "arranged marriage". Sorry...

@velvet: I haven't thought about this subject very deeply yet, I see now that I shouldn't have joined this conversation in the first place... I just observe that with the ideal of romantic love we have broken families as the norm and many people remaining single who ought to have children, from a demographic point of view. But then, I have too little experience about working family life, I just observe that we are dying out.

bæny
Saturday, December 4th, 2010, 10:26 PM
Just... no! I could never ever let my parents choose anyone for me, I strongly believe that you have to be attracted to someone in one way or another to commit to them properly. For me, having to lay down next to someone I find hideous is a sickening thought, and I would probably jump out of the window or something... And break my leg... :).

Bärin
Saturday, September 24th, 2016, 07:54 PM
Maybe arranged marriages should be reintroduced into our culture. The conceptive family has been too far tarnished by liberals, sexual deviants and PC people. Marriage has become antiquated and the single, childless or open, all fun and no responsibility relationship lifestyle is being promoted. :thumb down Older generations still have some concept of decency and ethnic preservation.

Leliana
Monday, September 26th, 2016, 11:09 PM
Maybe arranged marriages should be reintroduced into our culture.
'No!' because you can't force love and because freedom in choice of our partners is one of the integral stuff that differentiates us from the vile deserts hordes invading our countries. It's also part of our Germanic legacy, arranged marriages were more often the exception than the norm. Aristocracy and, previously, tribal marriage policy can't be used as an argument because 99% of Germanics were neither aristocrats nor tribe leader family members.


The conceptive family has been too far tarnished by liberals, sexual deviants and PC people.
Then we must regain prerogative of interpretation! 'Family' values are natural and in our blood.

Marriage has become antiquated and the single, childless or open, all fun and no responsibility relationship lifestyle is being promoted. :thumb down
'Marriage' is a holy oath, dating back before Christian times, and the surest way to erode the worth of marriage is to force someone to marry a certain person by means of arranged marriages. It would take the sacred away from the entire vow!

Older generations still have some concept of decency and ethnic preservation.
This has nothing to do with arranged marriage.

GKGhost
Tuesday, September 27th, 2016, 12:18 AM
Maybe arranged marriages should be reintroduced into our culture. The conceptive family has been too far tarnished by liberals, sexual deviants and PC people. Marriage has become antiquated and the single, childless or open, all fun and no responsibility relationship lifestyle is being promoted. :thumb down Older generations still have some concept of decency and ethnic preservation.

Are you seriously that naive to believe that an arranged marriage would change this? If anything it'd go well in fostering resentment, hatred, and fuelling even more "unsavory" behaviors.

The irony is, of course, arranged and forced marriages as oh so common in the non-white cultures aren't they? So in that sense, if you start doing what they do, how are you any different?

Your pale skin? Blue eyes? Blonde hair? Pfft, in this matter, that means less than nothing. Or have you never heard of the Kalash of Pakistan? Guess what not only are they pale skinned but they have blue eyes and blonde hair too.



You want proper marriages and behaviour try training your kids. Establish some standards for them to follow. Where do you think kids look to first - their parents but if their parents are lousy role models then they look elsewhere to relatives but if those relatives are likewise lousy that is when they start to deviate.

Be a parent and if you can't be then don't have kids. You see them hanging out / bringing home trash curb the behavior in the bud. Tell them instead of sitting on your arse in front of the TV. If you have a proper rapport with your kids then they'll take what you say into consideration instead of doing what you tell them not to.

Sorry but working with unsavory people, criminals and addicts, I have long since found those that blame everyone else but themselves [who 7 out of 10 times are those truly responsible] are those that need to 'clean' their own 'backyards' first.

Bärin
Tuesday, September 27th, 2016, 01:11 AM
'No!' because you can't force love and because freedom in choice of our partners is one of the integral stuff that differentiates us from the vile deserts hordes invading our countries.
What you talk about are forced marriages, usually practiced by Muslims and other non-Euros, often involving child brides. An arrange marriage doesn't have to be forced, but would be an option for people to have their lives timely put in order by their parents. That's how it worked for aristocracies and how it still works with family businesses and some upper classes. Instead of f*cking their young adulthood up, they would marry and preserve the family name and fortune. They would get to meet people suitable for marriage and could pick based on the advice or their family. If they didn't like the choice they could find a better alternative.


It's also part of our Germanic legacy, arranged marriages were more often the exception than the norm. Aristocracy and, previously, tribal marriage policy can't be used as an argument because 99% of Germanics were neither aristocrats nor tribe leader family members.
Well if you want to use the majority argument look at the majority nowadays. Enough said. Contemporary culture has become too degenerate and decadent and unless some drastic measures are taken in all aspects of life, it will decay more and more, until a point of no return.


Then we must regain prerogative of interpretation! 'Family' values are natural and in our blood.
If it were that simple. It's not just nature, or else we wouldn't have people race mixing. Look at the average dating site profile, what people are looking for. The ethnic component is nowhere to be seen. "Love" is the base for everything. Well I consider a relationship should be based on other things than love. Ethnic compatibility, political and social compatibility, compatibility of values, friendship and support, all that is superior to a relationship between two people which have none of this in common, but love each other. Love is used to excuse everything, especially interracial. Poor them, we can't choose who we love. Their relationship is holy and vow is sacred, who are we to judge. That same kind of argument is used over and over again. :oanieyes


This has nothing to do with arranged marriage.
It has everything to do with it, our parents and grandparents are probably the last generations who weren't predominantly tainted by decadence and deviancy. I would trust much more for they to be in charge or have a significant say of who the next generations marry, rather than allow the future to be even more screwed up by liberal airheads.


Are you seriously that naive to believe that an arranged marriage would change this? If anything it'd go well in fostering resentment, hatred, and fuelling even more "unsavory" behaviors.

The irony is, of course, arranged and forced marriages as oh so common in the non-white cultures aren't they?
Arranged and forced aren't one and the same thing, like I said. But yes introducing arranged marriage or at least a clause which mandated the spouse be accepted by the family would eliminate some of the untraditional, hedonistic, hybrid relationships.


So in that sense, if you start doing what they do, how are you any different?

Your pale skin? Blue eyes? Blonde hair? Pfft, in this matter, that means less than nothing. Or have you never heard of the Kalash of Pakistan? Guess what not only are they pale skinned but they have blue eyes and blonde hair too.
So you're basically saying because some minority of people in Pakistan have blonde hair and blue eyes, there is no difference between my race and theirs? LOL. It's time you open one of those anthropology books, there's much more to race than pigmentation.


You want proper marriages and behaviour try training your kids. Establish some standards for them to follow. I don't know how many people like to point fingers at everyone but themselves when oftentimes their own "backyards" need a bit of cleaning first.
You can shove your lectures about my backyard. I have just the right standards for my kids and would apply them regardless. And likewise I have the approval of my parents and support of my marriage. I didn't need my parents to find a suppose for me but I can't say the same about a lot of people my age who always end up with the wrong person, at the very least they should face a consequence like getting disinherited for such actions.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, September 27th, 2016, 01:23 AM
Maybe not arranged marriages, but racial purity laws.:thumbup

At one time in America most states had such laws, the Germans at various times had such laws. I think in America they were called anti-miscegenation laws and Germany had racial purity laws. These should be strictly enforced for the preservation of our people.

Proper upbringing has a lot to with how one picks a match. Children need to be taught by their parents, and not by the state run education system. The education systems in most of our countries needs to scraped, especially the so called "higher learning" universities.

Siebenbürgerin
Tuesday, October 30th, 2018, 04:10 PM
Arranged marriages used to be the custom in my region. In fact, most of my ancestors before the modern era married according to this custom. There haven't been divorces, so they made it work somehow. In fact, there were a few folk sayings like "love comes after the wedding", or "love doesn't quench hunger". There were positive and negative things about arranged marriages, of course. On the positive side, this meant no mixed marriages. The partner was usually chosen from the family's region, either their friends, business or political associates, and so forth. The criteria was pragmatic: social class, financial, status in the community and of course ethnos. It was usually the fathers who would choose the bride or groom. In some cases, others could also make suggestions, including the children themselves, but the father's acceptance was needed for the wedding. So marriage was seen as a union of two families. The downside of course is that it restricts the freedom of choice of the children. However, it wasn't customary for the children to rebel. "Honor your father and your mother" was one of God's commandments and peoples were generally religious. It was considered disrespectful to oppose the will of your parents and most children trusted their parents' choices. For us, from the modern world it sounds a little bit strange, however, unlike the stereotype, many of those marriages were happy marriages, where love came after they knew each other better.

Would arrange marriages work today? Hmm, I'm not sure. Because today the community is not what it usedto be. It's not as closely knit and as homogeneous, and many peoples are brainwashed with leftist "morals". Also, peoples today don't marry as young as they did. They become more independent, and leave their parents house, so they're no longer under their authority by the time they get married. I don't think it's really arranged marriaged that we need but the principle of pragmatism for your marriage - and by this I don't mean money or class but other principles like ethnic preservation. Peoples today seem to have become too individualistic, and don't care about the consequences their marriage might have on the community.

Convenience marriages aren't necessarily the same, although many arranged marriages have a certain level of "convenience" for example a political marriage, however modern convenience marriages usually differ in that the bride or groom is seen as a mere ticket to get what they want (e.g. green card marriages). Love rarely comes into the picture afterwards. I've heard of cases of convenience marriages where the two lived separately and had affairs with other peoples. Others get married to hide someone's homosexuality. So the pair doesn't try to find love with each other, they at most just cohabitate. Convenience marriages usually exploit legal loopholes and can be punished by law. Unfortunately, many peoples today enter convenience marriages without being aware, and are exploited for money/citisenships.