Schools urged to identify signs of 'forced marriage' by government.

[h0m0revolutionary]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8129466.stm

Seems the government is jumping into it's regulate people sprivates lives role once again, to stop forced marriages :/

Now im torn, of course I don't endorce the state getting involved with peoples love-lives and moreover i'd go as far as to suggest that this is a well-timed nod to the islamophobes - a government in crisis always diverts attention with this kind of intrusive rubbish.

But on the other hand forced marriage is abhorrent and if the report is true, and people are calling on the government for help concerning forced marriage then cleasly something has to be done. It isn't necessarily more state intervention into the private realm i fear, they already have their hands well and truely on marriage, civil partnerships (not to mention recent attemtpts to criminalise BDSM activity). But i wonder what penalities the state could inflict upon those found to be entering into forced marriages?? - if we allow them such regulatory powers over such matters, I hate to tihnk what might follow :/

[RedSonRising]

It is an interesting conundrum there, the balance...I'd say the solution is to make separation/divorce easily accessible for unwilling spouses and to be able to request protection and legal representation against possibly hostile opposing family. That way the individual is the initiator in government involvement. I suppose State "intrusion" in this case is the lesser of two evils and actually protects the individual as more of an "intervention."

[Cheung Mo]

If forced marriage is happening, then this is no worse than the state forcing blood transfusions on the dying children of Jehovah's Witnesses against the will of the kooks they have the misfortune of calling parents.

[ls]

No the state has no right in this. Communities should be forcing both parents (if they do try and force their kids into a marriage) to get married to an elvis impersonator.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

This is not interfering with people's private lives. The key word here is forced; if the state doesn't intervene then what will happen to the person who is forced into marriage? This has nothing to do with interrupting people's love lives - there is no love to interrupt! I think a person being forced into marriage would be relieved to know that the state is able to help them.

[Cheung Mo]

No the state has no right in this. Communities should be forcing both parents (if they do try and force their kids into a marriage) to get married to an elvis impersonator.

The argument you're making is a minarchist one akin to what one typically hears from right-wing factions in the United States who call themselves "libertarians". If you take this argument to its logical conclusion and apply it to a place like the United States, you'll get communities of religious extremists and White supremacists imposing these standards upon their members with nothing to keep it in check.

Picture Dixie (as if it's not disgustingly reactionary enough already) if Eisenhower had not used his powers as commander-in-chief to forcibly integrate the schools against the will of people who have more in common with Hitler than they do with any sense of rationality or social justice.

Conversely, picture what Dixie would be like had the U.S. government continued to back the Radical Republicans and the liberal and social democratic reforms that they had been instituting in the South following the civil war.

[ls]

The argument you're making is a minarchist one akin to what one typically hears from right-wing factions in the United States who call themselves "libertarians".

One would think that "liberal" is the most evil word to use against someone on this site, but it's just old nowdays.


If you take this argument to its logical conclusion and apply it to a place like the United States, you'll get communities of religious extremists and White supremacists imposing these standards upon their members with nothing to keep it in check.

Yeah yeah, alright, except there aren't "communities of religious extremists and White supremacists" and if they tried to do racist or religious shit (remembering religion would be banned anyway) then other communes would clearly have to intervene.


Picture Dixie (as if it's not disgustingly reactionary enough already) if Eisenhower had not used his powers as commander-in-chief to forcibly integrate the schools against the will of people who have more in common with Hitler than they do with any sense of rationality or social justice.

Picture colonial settlers who set that kind of disgusting attitude into people in the first place, picture presidents who have worked to uphold certain disgusting attitudes while some are magic'd away.


Conversely, picture what Dixie would be like had the U.S. government continued to back the Radical Republicans and the liberal and social democratic reforms that they had been instituting in the South following the civil war.

Yes I am clearly promoting social-democratic reforms and am a dangerous liberal. Now spank me.

[Dimentio]

People should only have sex in "sex room".

Long live sizpo communism!

[Atlanta]

[QUOTE=ls;1481963]One would think that "liberal" is the most evil word to use against someone on this site, but it's just old nowdays.


QUOTE]

Librals arnt the same thing as Libertarians.

[Revy]

Forcing someone into a marriage should be illegal, obviously. Wouldn't a forced marriage entail kidnapping, slavery and rape? Yeah, if someone is forced into a marriage I'm not sure they are going to be respected as human.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Forcing someone into a marriage should be illegal, obviously. Wouldn't a forced marriage entail kidnapping, slavery and rape? Yeah, if someone is forced into a marriage I'm not sure they are going to be respected as human.


No i dont think it has to involve such overt coercion, if I had to choose between maintaining relations with my family and entering into a marriage they wnated, i'd have to choose the latter. I imagine this is the form most forced marriages take, not some poor soul being dragged gagged, kicking and scremaing down an aisle ;)

[ls]

No i dont think it has to involve such overt coercion, if I had to choose between maintaining relations with my family and entering into a marriage they wnated, i'd have to choose the latter. I imagine this is the form most forced marriages take, not some poor soul being dragged gagged, kicking and scremaing down an aisle ;)

But what about the ones that don't take that form (believe me I've experienced such an angry pair of parents threaten their daughter with a machete).

It does happen and it does not seem that uncommon.


Librals arnt the same thing as Libertarians.

Well done. Would you like a cookie?

[OneNamedNameLess]

No i dont think it has to involve such overt coercion, if I had to choose between maintaining relations with my family and entering into a marriage they wnated, i'd have to choose the latter. I imagine this is the form most forced marriages take, not some poor soul being dragged gagged, kicking and scremaing down an aisle ;)

People shouldn't have to choose between being disowned by their family or marrying someone they don't know in the first place. Each and every one of us should have the right to choose who we do and don't marry. Control freak parents should not dictate who their son or daughter should love and spend the rest of days with.

[Luís Henrique]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8129466.stm

Seems the government is jumping into it's regulate people sprivates lives role once again, to stop forced marriages :/

What about, for instance, domestic violence? Is the government "jumping into it's regulate people sprivates lives role" if it forbids husbands from spanking their wives?


Now im torn, of course I don't endorce the state getting involved with peoples love-lives and moreover i'd go as far as to suggest that this is a well-timed nod to the islamophobes - a government in crisis always diverts attention with this kind of intrusive rubbish.

But on the other hand forced marriage is abhorrent and if the report is true, and people are calling on the government for help concerning forced marriage then cleasly something has to be done. It isn't necessarily more state intervention into the private realm i fear, they already have their hands well and truely on marriage, civil partnerships (not to mention recent attemtpts to criminalise BDSM activity).

Marriage itself is State regulation of sexual/emotional activity.


But i wonder what penalities the state could inflict upon those found to be entering into forced marriages??

Nullification of said "marriage", I presume?


- if we allow them such regulatory powers over such matters, I hate to tihnk what might follow :/

It has already "followed", long time ago.

Luís Henrique

[EddieBhoy]

Good thing their trying to crack down on these scams of marriages, Ofton when one refuses to wed their arranged other half..... They are killed by the family, good riddance to these things if this scheme works.

[Outinleftfield]

People shouldn't have to choose between being disowned by their family or marrying someone they don't know in the first place. Each and every one of us should have the right to choose who we do and don't marry. Control freak parents should not dictate who their son or daughter should love and spend the rest of days with.

I agree but should the state stop parents from disowning their children in the first place(for no reason)? If not then it doesn't make any sense to stop them when there is a reason. They could always make up a reason why they are disowning their children.

There are many bad reasons for parents to disown their children, religion, sexual orientation, marrying the wrong person, and not marrying someone they want you to is just one of many.

Personally if my parents told me to marry or I'd be disowned I'd disown them.