Page 1 of 1

[DRAFT] Bad Romance

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 8:03 pm
by Frieden-und Freudenland
Inspiration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Jihad

[description]According to the statistics, interfaith marriages between followers of @@FAITH@@ and Violetism in @@NAME@@ are on the rise. But sociologists have also discovered a worrying trend: a sizable portion of @@FAITH@@ devotees usually convert to Violetism right before tying the knot.

[validity]religion not banned, Violetism not banned, there is a national religion, national religion is not Violetism, marriage is allowed, changing one's religion is allowed, low inclusiveness

1. [option]"This is a Violetist conspiracy to slowly erode @@FAITH@@ and change the very fabric of our society!" fumes @@RANDOMNAME@@, an ultra-conservative columnist, carrying a banner that reads 'Roses are red, Violetists are poo'. "We cannot allow this travesty! The solution is to ban interfaith marriages disregarding shotgun conversions, and to stop the Violetism virus from spreading further."

[effect]people who recently converted have to wait for years before they can marry their same-faith partners

2. [option]"This is a bit extreme, if you ask me," interjects @@RANDOMNAME@@, an anthropologist from @@CAPITAL@@ University whose research focuses on Violetist traditions. "In the Violetist community, marrying an outgroup member is often disapproved of - and so is apostasy. So if a believer of Violetism wants to marry a believer of @@FAITH@@ their only option to avoid ostracism is for the latter to convert to Violetism. We cannot change what Violetists believe, nor can we tell adults whom to marry. All we can do within bounds of reason would be to be on the lookout for signs of 'coerced conversions' and prosecute those."

[effect]concerned parents call the police over their daughters being cat-fished into Violetism

3. [option]"Why do we allow people to leave our glorious religion @@FAITH@@ and condemn themselves to a life of sin and misery?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a preacher of @@FAITH@@, theatrically raising @@HIS@@ hands to the heavens. "Once a follower of @@FAITH@@, always a follower of @@FAITH@@, if you ask me. Muttering some Violetist tongue-twisters cannot - and should not - change where your soul belongs. We should prohibit people from leaving @@FAITH@@."

[effect]@@NAME@@ makes sure that its citizens keep the faith

4. [option]"I can't believe how hateful you all are!" gasps @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, a Violetist citizen whose wife is a follower of @@FAITH@@. "If anything, @@NAME@@ needs more interfaith marriages, not less. My wife and I raise our kids biculturally, they decorate our house with violets for the Violet Holidays, and they... do stuff with... @@FAITH@@ paraphernalia for... whatever holidays @@FAITH@@ celebrates. My point is, we need to make it easy for people to mingle with and marry people of other faiths, so everyone can enjoy this diversity."

[effect]The Violetist Bachelor is the most popular TV show

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:09 pm
by Trotterdam
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:[description]According to the statistics, interfaith marriages between followers of @@FAITH@@ and Violetism in @@NAME@@ are on the rise. But sociologists have also discovered a worrying trend: a sizable portion of @@FAITH@@ devotees usually convert to Violetism soon after tying the knot.
Saying both "sizable" and "usually" is redundant. Either they usually do that, or a sizable portion of them do that.

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:[validity]religion not banned, Violetism not banned, there is a national religion, marriage is allowed, changing one's religion is allowed
Also, the national religion is not Violetism.

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:1. [option]"This is a Violetist conspiracy to slowly erode @@FAITH@@ and change the very fabric of our society!" fumes @@RANDOMNAME@@, an ultra-conservative columnist, carrying a banner that reads 'Roses are red, Violetists are poo'. "We cannot allow this travesty! The solution is to ban interfaith marriages, and to stop the Violetism virus from spreading further."

[effect]prenuptial conversions to Violetism are the new trend
Well, I guess your effect line shows you're already aware why this isn't much of a solution.

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:3. [option]"Why do we allow people to leave our glorious religion @@FAITH@@ and condemn themselves to a life of sin and misery?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a preacher of @@FAITH@@, theatrically raising @@HIS@@ hands to the heavens. "Once a follower of @@FAITH@@, always a follower of @@FAITH@@, if you ask me. Muttering some Violetist tongue-twisters cannot - and should not - change where your soul belongs. We should prohibit people from leaving @@FAITH@@."

[effect]@@NAME@@ makes sure that its citizens keep the faith

4. [option]"I can't believe how hateful you all are!" gasps @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, a Violetist citizen whose wife is a follower of @@FAITH@@. "If anything, @@NAME@@ needs more interfaith marriages, not less. My wife and I raise our kids bicultural, they decorate our house with violets for the Violet Holidays, and they... do stuff with... @@FAITH@@ paraphernalia for... whatever holidays @@FAITH@@ celebrates. My point is, we need to make it easy for people to mingle with and marry people of other faiths, so everyone can enjoy this diversity."

[effect]The Violetist Bachelor is the most popular TV show
Honestly, I can't think of much reason to choose any option other than these two. If a nation supports religious freedom, then marriage is as good a reason to convert as any. (And if the spouses feel they can stay mixed-faith without straining their relationship, then, well, it's their religions.)

PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2021 1:38 am
by Baggieland
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:a sizable portion of @@FAITH@@ devotees usually convert to Violetism soon after tying the knot.

I believe they have to convert BEFORE they get married.

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:My wife and I raise our kids bicultural

Adverb needed here.

Trotterdam wrote:3. [option]"Why do we allow people to leave our glorious religion @@FAITH@@ and condemn themselves to a life of sin and misery?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a preacher of @@FAITH@@, theatrically raising @@HIS@@ hands to the heavens. "Once a follower of @@FAITH@@, always a follower of @@FAITH@@, if you ask me. Muttering some Violetist tongue-twisters cannot - and should not - change where your soul belongs. We should prohibit people from leaving @@FAITH@@."

[effect]@@NAME@@ makes sure that its citizens keep the faith

4. [option]"I can't believe how hateful you all are!" gasps @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, a Violetist citizen whose wife is a follower of @@FAITH@@. "If anything, @@NAME@@ needs more interfaith marriages, not less. My wife and I raise our kids bicultural, they decorate our house with violets for the Violet Holidays, and they... do stuff with... @@FAITH@@ paraphernalia for... whatever holidays @@FAITH@@ celebrates. My point is, we need to make it easy for people to mingle with and marry people of other faiths, so everyone can enjoy this diversity."

[effect]The Violetist Bachelor is the most popular TV show
Honestly, I can't think of much reason to choose any option other than these two. If a nation supports religious freedom, then marriage is as good a reason to convert as any. (And if the spouses feel they can stay mixed-faith without straining their relationship, then, well, it's their religions.)

Option 1: banning interfaith marriages, and option 2: prosecuting coerced conversions are very much part of the discussion in India.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 4:31 pm
by Frieden-und Freudenland
Baggieland wrote:
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:a sizable portion of @@FAITH@@ devotees usually convert to Violetism soon after tying the knot.

I believe they have to convert BEFORE they get married.


I am not quite sure about that. Because in that case, if the entire goal of the marriage had been to convert the woman, the man could decline to marry her after she converts. (Speaking of Islam, apostasy is prohibited and is punishable by death - though this may not be backed by the secular law, it is the Islamic law; so the woman could be coerced into remaining a Muslim, even though her fiance doesn't go through with marriage. This is something to think about.) This in itself, should be sufficient to debunk the conspiracy theories, in my opinion.

That being said, I also know of cases in Turkey where some people (especially women) convert soon after marriage, not necessarily before. But sure, this can help me fix the effect line.

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:My wife and I raise our kids bicultural

Adverb needed here.


Fixed, thanks.

Trotterdam wrote:3. [option]"Why do we allow people to leave our glorious religion @@FAITH@@ and condemn themselves to a life of sin and misery?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a preacher of @@FAITH@@, theatrically raising @@HIS@@ hands to the heavens. "Once a follower of @@FAITH@@, always a follower of @@FAITH@@, if you ask me. Muttering some Violetist tongue-twisters cannot - and should not - change where your soul belongs. We should prohibit people from leaving @@FAITH@@."

[effect]@@NAME@@ makes sure that its citizens keep the faith

4. [option]"I can't believe how hateful you all are!" gasps @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, a Violetist citizen whose wife is a follower of @@FAITH@@. "If anything, @@NAME@@ needs more interfaith marriages, not less. My wife and I raise our kids bicultural, they decorate our house with violets for the Violet Holidays, and they... do stuff with... @@FAITH@@ paraphernalia for... whatever holidays @@FAITH@@ celebrates. My point is, we need to make it easy for people to mingle with and marry people of other faiths, so everyone can enjoy this diversity."

[effect]The Violetist Bachelor is the most popular TV show
Honestly, I can't think of much reason to choose any option other than these two. If a nation supports religious freedom, then marriage is as good a reason to convert as any. (And if the spouses feel they can stay mixed-faith without straining their relationship, then, well, it's their religions.)

Option 1: banning interfaith marriages, and option 2: prosecuting coerced conversions are very much part of the discussion in India.



Yes, here is a relevant article.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021 ... te-muslims


P.S. Also made some tiny changes in the draft, which are underlined.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 6:44 pm
by Trotterdam
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:if the entire goal of the marriage had been to convert the woman
Does that really happen? That sounds more like something conspiracy theorists would allege than like a real reason for people to get married.

Though motivation varies by person. While the actual person getting married might have genuine feelings for the prospective convert, other members of the religious community might be more concerned with spreading their faith (or at least preventing already-faithful households from being diluted into multifaith ones) than with love, and so use social pressure to ostracize the union unless the spouse converts.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:38 pm
by Baggieland
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:I am not quite sure about that. Because in that case, if the entire goal of the marriage had been to convert the woman, the man could decline to marry her after she converts. (Speaking of Islam, apostasy is prohibited and is punishable by death - though this may not be backed by the secular law, it is the Islamic law; so the woman could be coerced into remaining a Muslim, even though her fiance doesn't go through with marriage. This is something to think about.) This in itself, should be sufficient to debunk the conspiracy theories, in my opinion.

I'm speaking from personal experience. I live in a muslim majority country and I know many westerners who married local ladies. They all had to convert before the ceremony in order for the marriage to be legitimate. If one person is not muslim at the wedding, then the marriage is haram.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:52 pm
by Frieden-und Freudenland
Baggieland wrote:
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:I am not quite sure about that. Because in that case, if the entire goal of the marriage had been to convert the woman, the man could decline to marry her after she converts. (Speaking of Islam, apostasy is prohibited and is punishable by death - though this may not be backed by the secular law, it is the Islamic law; so the woman could be coerced into remaining a Muslim, even though her fiance doesn't go through with marriage. This is something to think about.) This in itself, should be sufficient to debunk the conspiracy theories, in my opinion.

I'm speaking from personal experience. I live in a muslim majority country and I know many westerners who married local ladies. They all had to convert before the ceremony in order for the marriage to be legitimate. If one person is not muslim at the wedding, then the marriage is haram.

That makes sense. I am also speaking from personal experience, though the relatively secular nature of marriages in Turkey may be the difference. Religious marriages are not officially recognized (yet!), so while people may opt to have a religious wedding ceremony separately, they do need to have a city-hall-marriage to be legally married. So while marrying a non-Muslim might make the religious marriage haram, it is not relevant for the official marriage. And it seems to me that many people who are religious enough to want their spouses to be Muslim are not necessarily keen on making them convert before marriage. Maybe they also do not want to make it look like their marrying them is contingent upon the conversion, etc. Your point is probably accurate for the Southeast Asian context, however, on which this issue is based. And I have changed that part anyway. Cheers!

PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2021 3:59 pm
by Frieden-und Freudenland
Trotterdam wrote:
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:if the entire goal of the marriage had been to convert the woman
Does that really happen? That sounds more like something conspiracy theorists would allege than like a real reason for people to get married.


That's exactly the point. It is a prevalent enough conspiracy theory to pay attention to, however.

While I believe that nobody's #1 goal in marrying a non-Muslim is to convert them, I have heard people express a similar sentiment in Turkey. I had the misfortune to live in a very conservative city for about 1.5 years as a child, where most women wore hijab and basically saw non-hijabi women (like women in my family) as "loose (!) women." That being said, people in this town were actually NOT against their own sons marrying non-hijabi girls, but would only insist that the girls start wearing hijab after getting married. Interestingly, I heard some people say that it would earn their sons more sawab to marry a non-hijabi girl and force them to wear hijab - the reasoning being that hijabi women are already heaven-bound (!) but by marrying non-hijabi women and forcing them to wear hijab, you are saving them from damnation.

It might have been just a clever excuse that young men came up with to convince their parents to allow them to marry non-hijabi girls, of course. But the argument exists.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:57 pm
by Frieden-und Freudenland
Bump?

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:27 pm
by Lelscrep
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Bump?

Only thing left to me is that the description is biased towards the belief that religious conversion to Violetism is a bad thing - after all, a nation can have a national religion while not being oppressive about it to its citizens. The only way, I think, that the description could get away with calling conversion before marriage "worrying" is if the issue at least implies that most of the conversions are coerced; option two presents the possibility of coercion, but that idea is not substantiated anywhere else.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2021 10:46 pm
by Frieden-und Freudenland
Lelscrep wrote:
Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:Bump?

Only thing left to me is that the description is biased towards the belief that religious conversion to Violetism is a bad thing - after all, a nation can have a national religion while not being oppressive about it to its citizens. The only way, I think, that the description could get away with calling conversion before marriage "worrying" is if the issue at least implies that most of the conversions are coerced; option two presents the possibility of coercion, but that idea is not substantiated anywhere else.

Good point, but I think I need to change the validity for this, not the premise. In India, conversion to Islam is seen as very much a bad thing; which is not unrelated to rising Hindu fundamentalism. Similarly, in a highly conservative and insular nation, conversion to another religion (even if it is legally allowed) could be viewed with suspicion and distaste.

So I will add a low inclusiveness validity. Good point.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:28 am
by Australian rePublic
I would add high religiousness in the validity. Athestic countriea with a national religion probably wouldn't care

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 5:31 am
by Trotterdam
Australian rePublic wrote:I would add high religiousness in the validity. Athestic countriea with a national religion probably wouldn't care
Countries with high atheism rates and a national religion would probably consider those atheism rates to be the problem...

(Atheists obviously don't have a religious obligation to only marry atheists, but some of them might still be uncomfortable with marrying religious people and would try to pressure their fiancees into converting to atheism. Atheists can be just as pushy about their beliefs as anyone else.)

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2021 12:39 pm
by Terrabod
Trotterdam wrote:Atheists obviously don't have a religious obligation to only marry atheists, but some of them might still be uncomfortable with marrying religious people and would try to pressure their fiancees into converting to atheism. Atheists can be just as pushy about their beliefs as anyone else.

I think the type of marriages that this issue addresses are ones where there is a religious requirement for conversion before/after if the wedding. This isn't really a thing for atheists because an atheist is not concerned about going to hell or what have you for marrying a religious person. The reverse might be true though, because the religious person may be required to marry someone of the same faith.

I agree with Aussie about high Religiousness (or low Secularism). Some nations may have a national religion but with low religiousness even if that religion requires conversion before/after marriage religious citizens may be less orthodox and believe it's ok to ignore that rule. Similarly, some real world countries with a state religion (e.g. the Church of England) are very secular so one does not necessarily follow on from the other.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:30 am
by Australian rePublic
Trotterdam wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:I would add high religiousness in the validity. Athestic countriea with a national religion probably wouldn't care
Countries with high atheism rates and a national religion would probably consider those atheism rates to be the problem...

(Atheists obviously don't have a religious obligation to only marry atheists, but some of them might still be uncomfortable with marrying religious people and would try to pressure their fiancees into converting to atheism. Atheists can be just as pushy about their beliefs as anyone else.)

Not necassirely, many people would consider Australia or the UK to be Christian countries, and both countries have high rates of atheists, which nobody really considers to be a problem. The USA has significant amounts of people who complain about atheism, but the USA is typically more religious than the UK or Australia, hence why I am suggesting adding a high religiousness validity.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2021 4:05 am
by Trotterdam
Australian rePublic wrote:Not necassirely, many people would consider Australia or the UK to be Christian countries, and both countries have high rates of atheists, which nobody really considers to be a problem.
They're historically-Christian countries, but does their present-day government officially endorse Christianity?

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:13 pm
by Australian rePublic
Trotterdam wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Not necassirely, many people would consider Australia or the UK to be Christian countries, and both countries have high rates of atheists, which nobody really considers to be a problem.
They're historically-Christian countries, but does their present-day government officially endorse Christianity?

Either way, hence the need for high religiousity

PostPosted: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:37 pm
by Frieden-und Freudenland
Australian rePublic wrote:
Trotterdam wrote:They're historically-Christian countries, but does their present-day government officially endorse Christianity?

Either way, hence the need for high religiousity

I think a highly religious but also highly tolerant (high-inclusiveness) country would not lose its wits over these conversions.