Western Laws for Marriage

[busydude]

After a divorce neither should owe the other anything. It is beyond ridiculous that a marriage lasting mere hours may make the divorcée a millionaire.

Blame it on the lawyers. The thing you seem to take for grated is that they get a fair trial.

Even Islam (which most here perceive here to be backward) has laws for the easy devolution of a marriage. The only thing anyone owes is dower (if unpaid--that is the decided amount to be given by the male to the female) and variable "maintenance" for a year.

Who gets to decide on the dower?

 

[SandEagle]

True. Sex before marriage just gets you one hundred strokes with a whip.

Oh wait...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/world/africa/05somalia.html

Maybe not.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/exe_bibl1.htm

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica] Sexual grounds:

Other passages required people to be stoned to death or even burned alive for sexual activities:
[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]for adultery: Leviticus 20:10 states: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. This is repeated in Deuteronomy 22:22[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]for incest: Leviticus 20:11 states: And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death... See also Leviticus 20, verses 12 and 14. Verse 17 prescribe excommunication for incest with one's sister or step-sister.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]for temple prostitution: Leviticus 20:13 states: If a man also lie with
mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.... This verse is often incorrectly interpreted to refer generally to homosexual behavior. See also Deuteronomy 22:24. Both verses, in the original Hebrew, refer to homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples, which was a common religious practice in the tribes surrounding the Israelites.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]for bestiality: Leviticus 20:15 states: And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast.... See also Exodus 22:19.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]for sexual activity before marriage: Deuteronomy 22:13-21 concludes: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die...".. Note that this applied only to women who had been presented as virgin brides and could be proven to have engaged in intercourse before being engaged or married. There appears to have been no penalty for men who engaged in pre-marital sexual activity.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]for sexual activity with both a woman and her mother: Deuteronomy 20:14 requires that all three be burned alive.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]for being seduced if engaged: Deuteronomy 22:23-24 states: If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die. Note that this applied only to engaged women. Her fiancé could (in some cases) have sexual access to her, but no other man was permitted to engage in such activity as soon as she became engaged. There appears to have been no penalty for engaged men who seduced women.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]for rape of an engaged woman: Deuteronomy 22:25 states: But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. A man who raped a single woman who was not engaged would only have to marry her and give 50 shekels of silver to her father.[/FONT]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]for prostitution Leviticus 21:9 states: And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Executing someone by burning them alive appears to be reserved for a narrow range of criminal acts.[/FONT]

what you fail to mention is that this type of barbarism is found in more than one religion

 

[cybrsage]

I have found it puzzling that while the West claims to promote individual freedom, their marriage and divorce laws are moving in the opposite direction. Why can't married couples have their finances totally separate from each other? After a divorce neither should owe the other anything. It is beyond ridiculous that a marriage lasting mere hours may make the divorcée a millionaire.

Even Islam (which most here perceive here to be backward) has laws for the easy devolution of a marriage. The only thing anyone owes is dower (if unpaid--that is the decided amount to be given by the male to the female) and variable "maintenance" for a year.

Would it not make much more sense if getting married was not such a big deal? I mean lesser and lesser Americans want to get married and most if not all reasons have some financial reasoning.

The rules were designed when women did not work and men did. A women would spend 20 years raising children, maintaining the household, doing all the housework, etc. Then a divorce happens. The man can walk away with a career and easily survive, the woman lives on the street in ruin.

My wife has not worked during our marriage...I have been the sole breadwinner. If we were to divorce (not going to happen), I would expect to have to give her a lot of stuff and pay her money every month - it would only be right and fair. We built a life together - not as two individuals, but as a couple.

I think much of the problem with marriages today is that people see everything as his and hers. My money, my car, etc. You want us to go out to eat? Are you going to pay for it with your money? Just does not work, always ends poorly.

My wife and I have allowances, we each get a stipend from the money I bring home. I like to save mine for huge purchases, she likes to spend a little bit continuously. We both get the same money, so neither of us can feel slighted. We also have an "us fund", from which going to diner, movies, etc., is taken. This works well.

 

[busydude]

what you fail to mention is that this type of barbarism is found in more than one religion

But who are still practicing now?

Also, lol religion.

 

[Infohawk]

what you fail to mention is that this type of barbarism is found in more than one religion

I don't know about you but I live in the 21st Century. Judaism and Christianity have outgrown stoning. It's time that Islam stop lagging behind.

 

[1prophet]

http://www.google.com.pk/search?q=k....,cf.osb&fp=7ab7c649d145bb99&biw=1120&bih=605

What was this all about?

Using celebrities to judge marriage in the west is like using the tali ban to judge Islam.

 

[cybrsage]

I don't know about you but I live in the 21st Century. Judaism and Christianity have outgrown stoning. It's time that Islam stop lagging behind.

It is not so much that Judaism has outgrown stoning as it is that true semeicha has been lost. Without it, there can be no religious judges and therefor no religious court. Without those, no one can be found guilty and no one can be punished.

I cannot say if the courts would still hand out that punishment since there have been no courts for a very long time.

 

[cybrsage]

Using celebrities to judge marriage in the west is like using the tali ban to judge Islam.

Hey, stop insulting the taliban!

 

[The Green Bean]

Who gets to decide on the dower?

The woman. It can be 1$ or a $billion, whatever the couple agrees on beforehand.

 

[The Green Bean]

The rules were designed when women did not work and men did. A women would spend 20 years raising children, maintaining the household, doing all the housework, etc. Then a divorce happens. The man can walk away with a career and easily survive, the woman lives on the street in ruin.

My wife has not worked during our marriage...I have been the sole breadwinner. If we were to divorce (not going to happen), I would expect to have to give her a lot of stuff and pay her money every month - it would only be right and fair. We built a life together - not as two individuals, but as a couple.

I think much of the problem with marriages today is that people see everything as his and hers. My money, my car, etc. You want us to go out to eat? Are you going to pay for it with your money? Just does not work, always ends poorly.

My wife and I have allowances, we each get a stipend from the money I bring home. I like to save mine for huge purchases, she likes to spend a little bit continuously. We both get the same money, so neither of us can feel slighted. We also have an "us fund", from which going to diner, movies, etc., is taken. This works well.

In our society, the male has to pay all the family expenses. The woman's money is her own and she may spend it as she wants. "Female dominance?"

 

[The Green Bean]

This is an interesting topic. Thanks for starting it.

I think that if the couple has children, then they obviously cannot be totally separated from each other because there is likely some child support involved.

You make some good points. However, I think a one year "maintenance" period is rather short. That doesn't seem like enough time for the partner earning less, or with less education, to at least try to get to a level of the previous lifestyle. Perhaps a 5-year maintenance window would be better. I'm picking 5 years because this would be 1-year beyond the time needed to obtain a traditional undergraduate degree.

You bring a good point. However, in Islamic society the man and woman would be expected to re-marry within that one year. Wouldn't Western individuals have a new partner within that time? In Islamic societies, that partner would be called a husband or wife.

To put it in perspective, Islamic marriage is somewhere between Western marriage and living together without being married. There is a legal procedure yet not much financial liability in case of divorce.

I've been discussing Islamic laws because I know those the best and they are the only other kind of laws in today's world IMO.

 

[MovingTarget]

OP, I have a question for you. Can you clarify something here:

Which are you trying to contrast?
a) Islamic Law* vs. Christian Law* on marriage
b) Islamic Law vs. Western governmental law on marriage
c) Secular Law in predominantly Islamic countries vs. Christian laws on marriage
d) Secular Law in predominantly Islamic countries vs. Secular Law in predominantly Christian countries
e) None of the above
f) All of the above

*I'm not entirely sure that Islam and Christianity have 100% set laws on these as part of the respective religions. Each sect/denomination is different. We may assume the laws of the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox church, or the various laws of Shia/Sunni/etc Islam...

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Marriage is an integral part of our society. The laws were purposely written to make divorce more difficult.

 

[The Green Bean]

OP, I have a question for you. Can you clarify something here:

Which are you trying to contrast?
a) Islamic Law* vs. Christian Law* on marriage
b) Islamic Law vs. Western governmental law on marriage
c) Secular Law in predominantly Islamic countries vs. Christian laws on marriage
d) Secular Law in predominantly Islamic countries vs. Secular Law in predominantly Christian countries
e) None of the above
f) All of the above

*I'm not entirely sure that Islam and Christianity have 100% set laws on these as part of the respective religions. Each sect/denomination is different. We may assume the laws of the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodox church, or the various laws of Shia/Sunni/etc Islam...

I want your views on whether you think Western laws on marriage and divorce are progressive given the hectic pace of life today. Would it be better to abolish marriage altogether or make it easier hence making marriage nothing more than an "I'm taken" token? This would in theory make it easier to marry and get divorced while also preventing casual "cheating."

Secular laws in Islamic countries are very unclear. In Pakistan for example, it is illegal to have sex outside marriage. However, it's not the law enforcement agencies that are preventing extra-marital sex. It is society itself.

 

[The Green Bean]

Marriage is an integral part of our society. The laws were purposely written to make divorce more difficult.

Yes, but it's now considered so difficult that people don't risk getting married because of that.

 

[cybrsage]

In our society, the male has to pay all the family expenses. The woman's money is her own and she may spend it as she wants. "Female dominance?"

What society do you live in? That is not how it works in the US.

 

[Infohawk]

What society do you live in? That is not how it works in the US.

He lives in Pakistan.

 

[The Green Bean]

What society do you live in? That is not how it works in the US.

Pakistan.

 

[monovillage]

Damn, i thought this was going to be a thread about shotgun weddings, riding off into the sunset, John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara instead of this garbage. What the hell do the kardashians have to do with anything other then to show how fucked up our media is?