Arranged Marriage

[FinalEnigma]

Throughout much of human history and culture (and still, in some places), Arranged marriages were a common practice. The questions here are , is arranged marriage a logical practice? and is it a moral practice?

Some would argue that the practice of arranged marriage is tantamount to treating women like cattle to be bartered off for alliance or profit. Is this true in theory? is it true in practice?

Other would say that most people will marry for poor and superficial reasons, resulting in a lower chance of lasting happiness, and that arranged marriages are a good way of finding a good match for each person. Is this true in theory? Is it true in practice?

[Donray]

The problem is you need define what you mean by arranged marriage.
There are arranged marriages where neither the man nor the woman can refuse marriage. These are mostly marriages for political reasons. No love involved and in many cases the male has many concubines and maybe other wives.

We have what was done by Mohamad and is part of Islam where a man essentially buys a young girl for his wife. The man arranges with the girls family to buy the girl for a monetary exchange. The girl is forced into the marriage. The girls are usually below 15 and the man over 40 (rich enough to buy the girl). I look at this as the family making a whore of their daughter. Again, no love and the girl is treated like property.

I worked with many college educated man and woman form India and there arranged marriages were not a forced marriage by either the man or the woman. They use marriage what would be dating sites. The man usually input the properties they would like for a wife and selects a few to (date) with a chaperone. If both agree, they date with the parents. If the parties all agree a marriage is arranged. Note: both male and female agree to the marriage.

So what type of arranged marriage do want to discuss? Where the old dude buy the young teen girl and marry so that he can say it’s not rape?

[Wootah]

Throughout much of human history and culture (and still, in some places), Arranged marriages were a common practice. The questions here are , is arranged marriage a logical practice? and is it a moral practice?

Some would argue that the practice of arranged marriage is tantamount to treating women like cattle to be bartered off for alliance or profit. Is this true in theory? is it true in practice?

Other would say that most people will marry for poor and superficial reasons, resulting in a lower chance of lasting happiness, and that arranged marriages are a good way of finding a good match for each person. Is this true in theory? Is it true in practice?

No one really knows the person they are marrying and family and upbringing are important factors in determining if someone will be a good partner. I believe two Christians with Christ at the centre of their relationship will have a wonderful marriage all their days.

edit: And get married young. Life is too short to not spend it with a life partner.

I regret my years of dating, stringing women along. Not just for that but for the fact that it means there are years of my life that i cannot share memories of with my wife.

[FinalEnigma]

The problem is you need define what you mean by arranged marriage.
There are arranged marriages where neither the man nor the woman can refuse marriage. These are mostly marriages for political reasons. No love involved and in many cases the male has many concubines and maybe other wives.

We have what was done by Mohamad and is part of Islam where a man essentially buys a young girl for his wife. The man arranges with the girls family to buy the girl for a monetary exchange. The girl is forced into the marriage. The girls are usually below 15 and the man over 40 (rich enough to buy the girl). I look at this as the family making a whore of their daughter. Again, no love and the girl is treated like property.

I worked with many college educated man and woman form India and there arranged marriages were not a forced marriage by either the man or the woman. They use marriage what would be dating sites. The man usually input the properties they would like for a wife and selects a few to (date) with a chaperone. If both agree, they date with the parents. If the parties all agree a marriage is arranged. Note: both male and female agree to the marriage.

So what type of arranged marriage do want to discuss? Where the old dude buy the young teen girl and marry so that he can say it’s not rape?

Any of them. The sort practiced by Indian cultures could be interesting to discuss. Do you think that it is really a free choice by the to-be couple? Admittedly I have less exposure to such marriages than you, but the one Indian woman I know who is involved with one does not wish to get married to this person, but is doing so anyway. Although I am not sure whether she is doing it because of parental pressure, or because she is currently being pursued by a married man and is trying to take herself off the market to keep herself from having an affair.

No one really knows the person they are marrying and family and upbringing are important factors in determining if someone will be a good partner.

I disagree with this. I knew quite well the person I was marrying. We had been engaged for a year and a half and been living together for longer than that (living with her parents, at that, so I knew her family, too). We had also worked together for either 6 months or a year (I can't remember).

How did we not know one another?

I also disagree that family and upbringing are NECESSARILY important factors. In some situations, family is not relevant because of separation or orphaning for example, and I'm much more concerned with who someone is and where they're going than I am with their upbringing.

I believe two Christians with Christ at the centre of their relationship will have a wonderful marriage all their days.

I don't think this is valid either, but I'm not really interested in debating it, since I can see no result other than an inevitable no true Scotsman fallacy or circular reasoning, as any instance of two Christians with Christ at the center of their relationship failing would be undoubtedly held as proof that they did not have Christ at the center of their relationship.

[Donray]

No one really knows the person they are marrying and family and upbringing are important factors in determining if someone will be a good partner. I believe two Christians with Christ at the centre of their relationship will have a wonderful marriage all their days.

Why are divorces mostly between Christians?

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 1 by FinalEnigma]

Thanks for starting the thread. First I have to voice my agreement that 'arranged marriages' are too general to be discussed in sufficient detail.

Other would say that most people will marry for poor and superficial reasons, resulting in a lower chance of lasting happiness, and that arranged marriages are a good way of finding a good match for each person. Is this true in theory? Is it true in practice?

What does 'good match' mean?

[Paprika]

No one really knows the person they are marrying and family and upbringing are important factors in determining if someone will be a good partner. I believe two Christians with Christ at the centre of their relationship will have a wonderful marriage all their days.

Why are divorces mostly between Christians?

Because Christians marry more.

[FinalEnigma]

[Replying to post 1 by FinalEnigma]

Thanks for starting the thread. First I have to voice my agreement that 'arranged marriages' are too general to be discussed in sufficient detail.

Other would say that most people will marry for poor and superficial reasons, resulting in a lower chance of lasting happiness, and that arranged marriages are a good way of finding a good match for each person. Is this true in theory? Is it true in practice?

What does 'good match' mean?

I would define a good marital match as a match resulting in a marriage with a relatively high level of happiness and growth, which does not end as a result of internal forces (irreconcilable differences, for example).

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 1 by FinalEnigma]

Thanks for starting the thread. First I have to voice my agreement that 'arranged marriages' are too general to be discussed in sufficient detail.

Other would say that most people will marry for poor and superficial reasons, resulting in a lower chance of lasting happiness, and that arranged marriages are a good way of finding a good match for each person. Is this true in theory? Is it true in practice?

What does 'good match' mean?

I would define a good marital match as a match resulting in a marriage with a relatively high level of happiness and growth, which does not end as a result of internal forces (irreconcilable differences, for example).

Noted.

But it has to be correspondingly pointed out that in most cultures across time a 'high level of happiness and growth' was not the primary goal or thing sought after; neither in many cultures could 'irreconcilable differences' be the basis for divorce (I say 'many' instead of 'most' because ancient cultures varied with respect to divorce laws/mores).
So what you're doing is assuming a romantic view of marriage with the corresponding goals ('high level of happiness of growth') along with the very recent social mechanisms that have liberalised divorce (eg. no-fault divorce).

It's all right to state your preferences in such a manner. Yet I must caution that to define a 'good marital match' in such a manner to examine the question of 'What forms of marriage are better?' is to subtly beg the question that a romantic approach to marriage is good and/or superior.

[FinalEnigma]

[Replying to post 1 by FinalEnigma]

Thanks for starting the thread. First I have to voice my agreement that 'arranged marriages' are too general to be discussed in sufficient detail.

Other would say that most people will marry for poor and superficial reasons, resulting in a lower chance of lasting happiness, and that arranged marriages are a good way of finding a good match for each person. Is this true in theory? Is it true in practice?

What does 'good match' mean?

I would define a good marital match as a match resulting in a marriage with a relatively high level of happiness and growth, which does not end as a result of internal forces (irreconcilable differences, for example).

Noted.

But it has to be correspondingly pointed out that in most cultures across time a 'high level of happiness and growth' was not the primary goal or thing sought after;

Conceded.

neither in many cultures could 'irreconcilable differences' be the basis for divorce (I say 'many' instead of 'most' because ancient cultures varied with respect to divorce laws/mores).

Here I must point out that I used irreconcilable differences as an example, with my condition being 'ending by internal forces'. That was probably too ambiguous. I think that any kind of fault divorce would fit my criteria as well. Irreconcilable differences was a bad example. I would not consider a marriage that ends in un-amicable divorce due to an affair to be a 'good match' marriage.

let me retry my definition:
I would define a good marital match as a match resulting in a primarily harmonious or happy marriage, which does not end un-amicably as a result of internal forces or actions.

What I am attempting to do is define it in such a way that a marriage with constant bickering and unhappiness or one that ends because one or both partners could not stand the other or did something wrong (adultery which ends the marriage) would not be considered a good match, but a marriage which ends because one partner went missing for 5 years and was declared dead and the other remarried would not be considered a bad match, nor, now that I think about it, should a marriage that ended because both partners realized that though they had started with similar life directions, they had grown differently and amicably chose to end the marriage so that they could seek partners more suited to the direction in life that they were taking (incredibly rare as this would be).

So what you're doing is assuming a romantic view of marriage with the corresponding goals ('high level of happiness of growth') along with the very recent social mechanisms that have liberalised divorce (eg. no-fault divorce).

It's all right to state your preferences in such a manner. Yet I must caution that to define a 'good marital match' in such a manner to examine the question of 'What forms of marriage are better?' is to subtly beg the question that a romantic approach to marriage is good and/or superior.

Acknowledged (with my definition revision). I have difficulty with the idea of framing it any differently though, because it would seem to be that to frame it to encompass successful variants of every kind of marriage in every time would result in it being so broad as to be useless or tautological. such as "A good marital match is one resulting in a marriage that serves the intended purpose".

For seeking specificity, perhaps we could approach variants of arranged marriages one at a time, so as not to discount my more broad goal, nor to bog us down in attempting to discuss everything at once.

Ultimately, my intent with this thread was to start at the broad ends and debate our way down to see if we can find a variant of an arranged marriage which would be both efficacious and ethical to implement in modern society.