Should we criminalize arranged marriage?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

The real question is why shouldn't we? For which there is no acceptable answer.

[Albrenia]

What's with ignorant and insufferable progs wanting to ban anything "traditional", even when it's normal and often beneficial?

Anyway, no, we shouldn't criminalize arranged marriages.

How do you feel about arranged marriage against the wishes of one or more of those being married, or to those underage?

[Gravlen]

There's a difference between arranged marriages and forced marriages.

Arranged marriages are usually fine, and there's no reason to criminalize them.

Forced marriages are - and should be - outlawed.

In addition, child marriages (below the age of 18, although I can accept marriage between people above the age of consent) should be banned as well.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Again, the vast majority of arranged marriages are requested by the people getting married.

Its the sheerest formalism to assume that if a child 'asks' his or her parents to find a spouse that that automatically means there is consent, with nothing further, but this myopic argument just vindicates my view that people are unwilling to see coercion and duress unless its a blindingly obvious case of a father threatening to murder his daughter unless she marries X or Y. I mean, as long as a child 'asks' then everything's fair game, right? Let's not ask any further the degree of emotional undue influence wielded by a person in a position of authority, or the centuries of cultural expectations and familial obligations ingrained into that child's brain after years and years of his or her parents having ascendance and dominance over his or her young formative childhood years, let's ignore all of that, as long as the child, now an adult, formally 'asks' his or her parents to do something that is culturally expected of him and them, that's all we need to know to be satisfied there is consent. Nothing further.

You sound exactly like the people I argued with in the UK when pushing for reforms to domestic violence laws, the kind of people who think nothing less than a physical beating can vitiate consent. "Asking" is enough to prove consent. Sure. Okay.

It's not always socially expected and many people ask for an arranged marriage because of low social capital preventing them from getting a marriage by normal means. Like I said, this attitude of yours would deprive a lot of people of the opportunity for marriage.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The real question is why shouldn't we? For which there is no acceptable answer.

Because most arranged marriages are requested by the person it's being arranged for, often because they feel they don't have any other opportunity to find a partner, and that the taboo on parental involvement in partner selection within the Western world has led to the creation of a subculture of childless single men with low social capital who end up being radicalized.

[The Legendary]

In my nation marriage is illegal so problem solved.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

How do you feel about arranged marriage against the wishes of one or more of those being married, or to those underage?

Criminalize them, if they're not already criminal offences.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Love is a choice. Arranged marriages can and do work on the principle that most human beings are generally decent people. Most people don't beat their wives and so on. Most men want the best for their wife and vice-versa.

True arranged marriage has not existed in Dixie in centuries. In the Old South, and even today in my culture from time to time, it was customary for the father and mother to play matchmaker in the sense that they would directly veto a potential boyfriend. Jefferson Davis' first floor in his final mansion after the war had a meeting room with an admiral mirror. Men who came to check out and court with his daughters would be given alone time, but the mirror was secretly allowing the parents to view it. Each man was vetted before and after he met the daughter.

I believe that asking the father (or mother) for permission to date a woman, and honoring their decision regardless of the answer, is a very good thing. More parents should play gatekeeper.
Is that the same as an arranged marriage? No, but this principle is why I believe it should remain lawful.

A good parent legitimately seeks to protect their child. No modern parent entering into an arraged marriage is going to fail to background check the suitor, interview his family and friends, etc. etc. etc. etc., and I believe that most parents are good and actually want the best for their children.

I trust my parents with my life and have legally signed over full power of attorney to them for that reason. Your parents know you and understand your quirks, needs, wants, and dreams.

If you have abusive, neglectful, or cruel parents, then no, they should absolutely not choose their kids' life partners. The thing is, most people have decent parents.

These days, an arranged marriage isn't done to make a strategic alliance with Poland. It's done for the mutual interest of all parties involved. Decent parents care about their children. An arranged marriage conducted by a parent that gives a rat about their child isn't going to be any more dangerous than a normal marriage.

I believe that most arrange marriages end up satiasfactory. It may not be a deep, passionate romance, but it still blossoms, normally, into a partnership and bond all the same.

Most arranged marriages don't end with a fairytale of a deep, passionate romance like voluntary marraiges do, but like most marriages before the advent of no-fault divorce and the destruction of the links between sex and wedlock, they were acceptable enough and functioned like the kind of marriage Bill and Hillary Clinton have, minus the cheating.

Love is a choice.

[Albrenia]

How do you feel about arranged marriage against the wishes of one or more of those being married, or to those underage?

Criminalize them, if they're not already criminal offences.

Seems most of us are in agreement then. Even some of us progs.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

In addition, child marriages (below the age of 18, although I can accept marriage between people above the age of consent) should be banned as well.

My great-grandmother was sixteen when she married the love of her life, who was eighteen. Their romance would last over sixty years. My grandmother and grandfather were eighteen and twenty, respectively. My parents were in their low-to-mid twenties as well.

Marriage below the age of majority should be permissible if all adult parties consent, and only if they remain in the home of one of said party until the age of majority. I say that the age of matrimony should remain fourteen, as it is in many states to this day.

[Novus America]

The real question is why shouldn't we? For which there is no acceptable answer.

Because most arranged marriages are requested by the person it's being arranged for, often because they feel they don't have any other opportunity to find a partner, and that the taboo on parental involvement in partner selection within the Western world has led to the creation of a subculture of childless single men with low social capital who end up being radicalized.

I actually agree. Especially in the modern world, many people are having a hard time so parents helping those who need it is good.
But still we need strict laws against any coercion.

[San Lumen]

Yes it absolutely should be criminalized. How can one be happy in a marriage that was forced upon them?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because most arranged marriages are requested by the person it's being arranged for, often because they feel they don't have any other opportunity to find a partner, and that the taboo on parental involvement in partner selection within the Western world has led to the creation of a subculture of childless single men with low social capital who end up being radicalized.

I actually agree. Especially in the modern world, many people are having a hard time so parents helping those who need it is good.
But still we need strict laws against any coercion.

Agreed.

[Katganistan]

There's a difference between arranged marriages and forced marriages.

Arranged marriages are usually fine, and there's no reason to criminalize them.

Forced marriages are - and should be - outlawed.

In addition, child marriages (below the age of 18, although I can accept marriage between people above the age of consent) should be banned as well.

Yep.

[James_xenoland]

While it is easy to ban "forced marriage" – just put in the law that marriage should happen under the consensual agreement of both parties – banning "arranged marriage" is way harder. If a parent recommend their children to marry someone, is(n't) it arranged marriage? If the parent disagree with their children's partner of choice, should it be criminalized? What's an "implicit threat" and how should it be tackled by the law? As long as each partner have the option to jump out, good enough. If the parents threatened, for example, honor killing, they should be charged with violence and murder.

The difficulty with this view is that people tend to take a stilted and narrow view of what counts as coercion, unless the parent explicitly and expressly threatens to murder their child unless he or she enters the marriage, a lot of people are unwilling to see anything less than that as vitiating consent, its much harder to prove how the subtle influences and impacts of a parent, speaking from a position of dominance and authority, the person who has had the power to shape your upbringing and your existence for the formative years of your life, can wield a position of undue influence over you and how that kind of emotional control can be equally coercive as a direct threat of violence. In domestic violence we're slowly moving towards a more progressive and broader understanding of how coercion occurs in abusive relationships, and our understanding of abuse and coercion in child-parent interactions needs to evolve in that same enlightened direction, criminalizing both forced and arranged marriages is part of that process.

"Stilted and narrow" because it has to be based on fact and standards. And there is nothing natural about treating grown adults like preschool age children, but only at very specific times and reasonings. As for the bolded part.. You mean to say certain ideological groups are pushing for such moves, not that there is any kind of factual, scientific or even theoretical consensus for such. So the usual approach of the social sciences and other special interest groups. And on the child-parent interaction nonsense.. putting aside the literal jump in logic, questions on how it would work, why it's needed, as well as the "WTF" nature of it in general.. all I could tell you is good luck. Wishful thinking is about as close as it's ever going to get to reality.

[Cekoviu]

Nonconsensual marriages (many arranged marriages) should be, and we should ideally do away with marriage altogether.

[Katganistan]

In my nation marriage is illegal so problem solved.

General forum is not in character.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Nonconsensual marriages (many arranged marriages) should be, and we should ideally do away with marriage altogether.

I see you've been reading Friedrich Engels.

[James_xenoland]

Nonconsensual marriages (many arranged marriages) should be, and we should ideally do away with marriage altogether.

Um why? Could you explain the reasoning/logic behind such a move?

[Hammer Britannia]

Yes, clearly we should make marriages entirely random

Alright, joking at linguistics aside, I know that the OP is talking about forced marriages. Those should definitely be illegal with the exception of forcing famous celebrities to marry for the memes

[Cekoviu]

Nonconsensual marriages (many arranged marriages) should be, and we should ideally do away with marriage altogether.

I see you've been reading Friedrich Engels.

Of his work, I've only ever read The Communist Manifesto, and the last time I read it was several years ago.

Nonconsensual marriages (many arranged marriages) should be, and we should ideally do away with marriage altogether.

Um why? Could you explain the reasoning/logic behind such a move?

Nontraditional relationships are becoming more and more common and the primary incentive to be married is often simply a desire for the social and economic benefits of marriage. Not having legally recognized marriage eases burdens associated with resources and time, such as long divorce proceedings. Conferring at least some of the current economic benefits of marriage on people in demonstrated long-term relationships makes it pointless to undergo legal marriage, therefore easing those resource costs, and those who want to go through the ceremony and whatnot can still do so, making it a private affair.

[Neanderthaland]

I mean, obviously there's a spectrum here between gentle encouragement and the sort of marriages that involve shotguns and unhappy tears.

The latter clearly ought to be illegal, while the former is harmless, if sometimes annoying. This is simply a question of how much coercion a parent should be permitted to use.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I see you've been reading Friedrich Engels.

Of his work, I've only ever read The Communist Manifesto, and the last time I read it was several years ago.

Read Origin of Marriage and the Family.

[Purgatio]

The difficulty with this view is that people tend to take a stilted and narrow view of what counts as coercion, unless the parent explicitly and expressly threatens to murder their child unless he or she enters the marriage, a lot of people are unwilling to see anything less than that as vitiating consent, its much harder to prove how the subtle influences and impacts of a parent, speaking from a position of dominance and authority, the person who has had the power to shape your upbringing and your existence for the formative years of your life, can wield a position of undue influence over you and how that kind of emotional control can be equally coercive as a direct threat of violence. In domestic violence we're slowly moving towards a more progressive and broader understanding of how coercion occurs in abusive relationships, and our understanding of abuse and coercion in child-parent interactions needs to evolve in that same enlightened direction, criminalizing both forced and arranged marriages is part of that process.

"Stilted and narrow" because it has to be based on fact and standards. And there is nothing natural about treating grown adults like preschool age children, but only at very specific times and reasonings. As for the bolded part.. You mean to say certain ideological groups are pushing for such moves, not that there is any kind of factual, scientific or even theoretical consensus for such. So the usual approach of the social sciences and other special interest groups. And on the child-parent interaction nonsense.. putting aside the literal jump in logic, questions on how it would work, why it's needed, as well as the "WTF" nature of it in general.. all I could tell you is good luck. Wishful thinking is about as close as it's ever going to get to reality.

What facts and standards, exactly? Accusing someone of not abiding by "facts and standards" and then omitting to specify what those facts are is the height of hypocrisy. As for the suggestion that this treats adults like children.....no, that's an absurd argument. Contract law, rape law, and many other laws recognise a broader concept of duress and undue influence, as including more than just direct infliction of physical violence. Are we treating contracting parties and rape victims like children by wanting to vindicate the concept of voluntary consent? No, of course not, what a bizarre and insane argument that completely butchers and misunderstands the concept of voluntary consent.

[Purgatio]

Its the sheerest formalism to assume that if a child 'asks' his or her parents to find a spouse that that automatically means there is consent, with nothing further, but this myopic argument just vindicates my view that people are unwilling to see coercion and duress unless its a blindingly obvious case of a father threatening to murder his daughter unless she marries X or Y. I mean, as long as a child 'asks' then everything's fair game, right? Let's not ask any further the degree of emotional undue influence wielded by a person in a position of authority, or the centuries of cultural expectations and familial obligations ingrained into that child's brain after years and years of his or her parents having ascendance and dominance over his or her young formative childhood years, let's ignore all of that, as long as the child, now an adult, formally 'asks' his or her parents to do something that is culturally expected of him and them, that's all we need to know to be satisfied there is consent. Nothing further.

You sound exactly like the people I argued with in the UK when pushing for reforms to domestic violence laws, the kind of people who think nothing less than a physical beating can vitiate consent. "Asking" is enough to prove consent. Sure. Okay.

It's not always socially expected and many people ask for an arranged marriage because of low social capital preventing them from getting a marriage by normal means. Like I said, this attitude of yours would deprive a lot of people of the opportunity for marriage.

Someone who is made to enter a marriage without consent and can't leave and even suffering domestic violence in that marriage because they are unable to leave (I already cited a study showing domestic violence is more prevalent in arranged marriages than self-picked marriages) suffers a degradation and humiliation far worse than someone not being able to find a spouse. Comparing the two is like suggesting suffering rape is equivalent to wanting sex but not being able to find a sexual partner. Maybe thats disappointing, but no where close to the harm of a non-consensual marriage, including the undue influence and emotional duress that accompanies supposedly 'consensual' arranged marriages.