Jump to content
IGNORED

Marriage = contract between groom and father


Witsec1

Recommended Posts

It makes me want to shout 'wake up, wake up!' to the mothers who are allowing this to happen to their daughters (and sons, of course, but it does sound like the boys/men have more control over their destinies). I know they may have been raised the same way and so it is normalised to them, but becoming a mother changed me. The shit I would put up with for myself I would not accept for my children.

This. It's why I don't buy, "Oh, these women were raised this way, they don't know any better" in these sorts of matters. Human females are biologically "programmed" to care for our young. That's where we get the whole "mama bear" thing. At some point, they may make a decision to override that biology with their religion or other mumbo-jumbo, but that is still a decision that needs to be made, which is why I have no problem holding them responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is really scary stuff. However, seeing who the author is, I end up having to question whether some of the commentary is exaggerated. The quotations are full of craziness on their own, but the author of the piece is someone whose writings I tend to take with a grain of salt because I think she still is working through some issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Michael Pearl quotation in the commentary is accurate enough & doesn't misrepresent his views.

In some ways, if this approach is actually happening (groom eschews church & structure of church-sanctioned marriage ceremonies), it's hugely ironic & may in fact hasten the demise of the patri-arses.*

We can't have these young people just doing anything they want anytime they want without a patri-arse's "blessing." What good is a system if people won't follow it? And who will buy all those how-to books and go to all those do-it-this-way conferences, if the young people start blowing off "tradition?"

*Thanks, Lewis, for the great term!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fundies use the Old Testament to justify their courtship methods. It shouldn't be shocking that they would notice that the Old Testament doesn't have many examples of women choosing their own spouses. I'm only surprised that they don't advocate kidnapping women to serve as brides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It reminds me of Razing Ruth's account of how her parents tried to force her to marry a creep. When he proposed to her publicly, her family cheered even though she never said, "Yes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP's brother allegedly received this letter from a friend's fiancee.

Isaac and Rebekah would probably like to have a word with this guy: Abraham's servant was commissioned to find a wife for Isaac.

The servant approached Rebekah, after she had done him a favor, and asked her permission to spend the night at her father's house. She gave permission, and accepted the costly gifts he brought, even before calling her brother Laban.

Had she not consented, Abraham's servant would be freed from his oath to find a mate for Isaac: "But if the woman is not willing to follow you, then you will be free from this oath of mine..." Genesis 24:8.

Later, there's discussion of the possibility Abraham's clan would not give the servant any woman, but it still came down to Rebekah's willingness -- obviously, since she met the servant first and consented first.

Ditto Mary, who was betrothed when she consented to bear a child not her husband's without permission from either her father or Joseph.

The guy who wrote that letter, if he's for real, might find justification for his actions by the mental gymnastics he performed -- assuming, first, that reformed theology is correct; and then that the metaphor of marriage as the relationship between Christ and the Church could be extended exactly into real life. (By that same logic, then Jesus has regular carnal relations with the Church and produces children by her.)

The guy responsible for that letter has treated the woman who was to become his other half with gross disrespect for her humanity and dignity. He can shine that turd all he likes, but it's still utter shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is sovereign in choosing who will or will not believe in him, having chosen his people before the foundation of the world

Then why are you out on the streets trying to convert people, and trying to brainwash children with candy and skits on your missionary trips? If God has already chosen who will believe in him, then none of your efforts make any difference. Go home! Leave us alone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quiverfulls, Vision Forum and the rest of the like seem to have it justified, after all its in the bible in Isaiah 3:12, it says:

'As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths'

They even say that the new testament supports this as well. Maybe this gives them the right to control women. But then again the Bible is self-contradictory, it has mixed literary modes, the point of view changes and the way God is perceived changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

omg, in that letter the man wanted to consummate as soon as the father agreed. "Hi, my name is Fred, please take off your panties and assume the position." Does the woman get a choice in that? Or would it be too feminist to resist rape?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

omg, in that letter the man wanted to consummate as soon as the father agreed. "Hi, my name is Fred, please take off your panties and assume the position." Does the woman get a choice in that? Or would it be too feminist to resist rape?

This is insane, but I guess that's pretty much what the letter said.

I feel kind of sick now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty soon it will be ancient Scotland again, where the bride is actually stolen. Sick. :roll:

And yes, we discussed this exact text a few weeks ago. It doesn't surprise me. Nothing surprises me from these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's starting to remind me more and more of The Terrorists of Irustan, which opens with a scene of a bunch of men sitting around having coffee and talking about this and that before signing some paperwork together while an immobile red satin lump is parked silently by the table. Then some of the men leave and the one who stayed behind takes the red satin covering off the lump, and there's a person underneath. A woman, to be precise. This is her wedding day. IIRC she has never spoken one word to her new husband--he has never even seen her eyes--and then she has to have sex with him whenever he wants and obey him in all things.

It's kind of like The Handmaid's Tale except that the ancestors of this particular crazy culture were probably Muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty soon it will be ancient Scotland again, where the bride is actually stolen. Sick. :roll:

Here in Minnesota we have a very large population of Hmong. The Hmong were a nomadic group in southeast Asia who helped the United States during the Viet Nam war. They had no home country. After the war they were persecuted by the Communists who had won. They were admitted to this country as refugees. Many spent years prior to coming here in refugee camps in Thailand. They have been coming here since the 1980's. The last group was admitted to the U.S. about 5 years ago. In Asia they had the practice of kidnapping brides. In their early years it wasn't uncommon for young women to be kidnapped, which of course wasn't OK here. These were usually very young girls, ages 13 or 14. It rarely happens anymore. Arranged marriages are still fairly common in the more recently arrived immigrants. But those who've been here 2 or 3 generations are becoming more Americanized, and not getting married as young teens.

Nell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Minnesota we have a very large population of Hmong. The Hmong were a nomadic group in southeast Asia who helped the United States during the Viet Nam war. They had no home country. After the war they were persecuted by the Communists who had won. They were admitted to this country as refugees. Many spent years prior to coming here in refugee camps in Thailand. They have been coming here since the 1980's. The last group was admitted to the U.S. about 5 years ago. In Asia they had the practice of kidnapping brides. In their early years it wasn't uncommon for young women to be kidnapped, which of course wasn't OK here. These were usually very young girls, ages 13 or 14. It rarely happens anymore. Arranged marriages are still fairly common in the more recently arrived immigrants. But those who've been here 2 or 3 generations are becoming more Americanized, and not getting married as young teens.

Nell

An acquaintance of mine pointed out that a certain portion of these "capture marriage" incidents among Hmong were actually elopements against parental consent in a way that allowed the woman to maintain a relationship with her parents. It was difficult to tell those marriages from ones that were actual kidnappings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The title of this thread reminds me of the scene in "Sweeney Todd" in which the evil judge says of Joanna, who has been his ward since he stole her as an infant from her mother, something like, "To shield her from the contamination of the world, I have decided to marry her myself." *shudders*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.