[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Like so often, you’re just repeating what already has been said. It doesn’t make it any better.
A minor lie cannot lead to an anullment, it can only lead to divorce. [/quote]
What constitutes a minor lie in someone else´s marriage is definitely not for you to decide.
Of course not, but also not for Allah.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Shame.
Shame on this pute and on you for parroting this nonsense.
So according to you every lie is worth an annulment? [/quote]
No. But when the lie is about something either parties deems essential to the marriage, then an annulment is feasible.
[quote]Also, how can she say, “a contract they both agreed upon”?
You know how pressured these girls are. [/quote]
No, I don’t. Enlighten me.
She wanted to snatch a husband and resorted to lying to get it? Where the bloody hell is the pressure?
I see. The poor little girl is the victim here because French law is macho and the poor Lilloises don’t have equality in the eyes of the courts as their male counterparts.
Gimme a break! Just because they dare to pee standing up (as Nature intended!) doesn’t mean the country missed feminism.
[quote]Also, a lot of girls don’t bleed (at least if you’re sensitive), the hymen is stretched.
This makes it impossible to approach it scientifically. Meaning, it can’t be proven. [/quote]
That’s a good point. But that wasn’t the girl’s defense. She could have argued that a tampon deflowered her, that she was born without a hymen or that it’s so elastic/thick, that you’d need a sharp penis to poke a hole in it.
But she didn’t. She went to court admitting there was intent to deceive.
That’s entirely different. It’s nothing but a reductio ad absurdum. The condition in this case is inadmissible because 1) there was no malicious intent 2) the husband cannot force her to wear the garments of his choosing.
Again, sterility is ground for divorce, not annulment. As long as there is no lying about things over which you have (had) control, annulment would be almost impossible to get.
And don’t bring Allah into this.
[quote]In Germany, there’s a lot of “honor-killings” around in the muslimic communities. And unofficially, it’s quite shocking what you hear privately from muslims.
The state has a big interest in helping women there and shouldn’t cave in to madness. [/quote]
So, because there are “honor-killings” in Germany, a French civil court should be biased towards women?
You must tell me how that works out in your brains, 'cause I can’t see it.
Oooh, so she’s “dried up” now, is she?
There is nothing to accept about “virginity”. It’s a bloody (no pun intented) fact of life. Women got the short end of the stick (again, no pun intended) on this one.
Male virginity is prized in some cultures (not on T-Nation!), but there is no external sign to tell if a man did the deed or not. And if you don’t think it’s fair, go bash your head against a wall, because it’s never gonna change. That’s basic anatomy.
The hymen does not serve any physiological purpose, but it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view, seeing how women get pregnant and oftentimes, get stuck with the babies.
So it served two societal purposes: 1) it kept women from fornicating as long as they didn’t find a man who promises not to leave in the morning 2) it gave a certain degree of certainty to the man that there is no bun in the oven.
Refusal to accept basic anatomical differences between the sexes is denial not feminism.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Lol, again and again! An enlightened Muslim? Ha ha ha!
I think you better stick to Sharia and engineering, before you make even more of an ass out of yourself (if, indeed, that is even possible!).[/quote]
Thank for your ever fascinating comments.
Truly, you are an invaluable asset to this forum.
I should point out that the French courts routinely annuls mixed marriages on whimsical grounds, as long as the French spouse is behind it. It includes such motives as “we don’t get along” and “we’re incompatible”. That is something I find outrageous. An annulment following deceit on a trait deemed essential by both parties is perfectly normal.
Marriage is a contract, and has been treated as such for over a century in France. The noise around this affair is totally unwarranted.
I just found out that the judge affected to this affair is a woman. Does anyone think a chick who gets access to such a high position (with all the competition that it entails) is anti-feminist at heart?
Délicieuse ironie quand tu nous tiens…
[quote]lixy wrote:
I just found out that the judge affected to this affair is a woman. Does anyone think a chick who gets access to such a high position (with all the competition that it entails) is anti-feminist at heart?
Délicieuse ironie quand tu nous tiens…[/quote]
Are you saying a man would be more impartial?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
lixy wrote:
I just found out that the judge affected to this affair is a woman. Does anyone think a chick who gets access to such a high position (with all the competition that it entails) is anti-feminist at heart?
Délicieuse ironie quand tu nous tiens…
Are you saying a man would be more impartial?[/quote]
I think he’s saying quite the opposite.
i couldnt read all of the thread but to throw in my view (And run) so others may take from it what they want.
It has allways been MY BELIEF, that polygamy was illegal because in tandem with arranged marriages allows the hoarding a women as property. This allows culture to be controlled by the rich, and keeps certain social structures alive. While the ratio of men to women fluctuates due to many factors it can create situations in which there is many unmarried young men. This can be a problem. There is also socio/cultural issues. Preventing growth, etc.
I personally find it interesting that the cultures that practice polygamy have men in a position of power over women, including the right of corporal punishment to keep them in line. Social practice to extremely punish women who stray, etc. Whilst none of them have women who have multiple partners. Nor social customs that place that women in a place of control. The cultures in those regions would personally find that idea repulsive.
I believe its about control. Not just a position of control, but social power and insulation from the cultures/peoples around you. It prevents, and i am sorry for the misuse of the term, “organic” growth of a people/culture/society.
Interesting theory about men being in control. That is where polygyny is the norm. You forget that polyandry is also just as valid (despite how weird I personally think it is).
An alternative explanation is that cultures where men are very clearly in control have more wars (no causal direction implied), and polygamy is socially necessary to take care of all the war widows, who due to the division of labor, are unable to take care of themselves.
In this explanation, I would agree that the system is patriarchal, but the polygamy is a symptom, and not a cause.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Interesting theory about men being in control. That is where polygyny is the norm. You forget that polyandry is also just as valid (despite how weird I personally think it is).[/quote]
It’s not exactly a theory. Men are in control everywhere. Women can be given high positions of power, but (from my observations) it’s either thanks to their immediate family or the position is mainly symbolic. The day when women get to be 50/50 in those cigar-smoke-filled clubs where the big decisions take place, is the day a semblant of equality will be achieved.
Women, in case you didn’t notice, have a natural drive for pair-boding. Men, on the other hand, are all for spreading seeds all over the place. That’s where the differences in the spread of polygyny/polyandry come into play. I also don’t know if you’re aware, but the chances of a powerful man to be faithful to his wife are close to nil. You have no idea just how much power and money can corrupt souls.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Women, in case you didn’t notice, have a natural drive for pair-boding. Men, on the other hand, are all for spreading seeds all over the place. [/quote]
I don’t think you can back this statement up.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
lixy wrote:
I just found out that the judge affected to this affair is a woman. Does anyone think a chick who gets access to such a high position (with all the competition that it entails) is anti-feminist at heart?
Délicieuse ironie quand tu nous tiens…
Are you saying a man would be more impartial?[/quote]
Good one!
Schwarz’s argument was about women’s rights. I don’t think any judge (man or woman) would rule any differently in this case. But I expect a woman judge to feel particularly involved in the case and do her research and deliberation more thoroughly than a man might. Precisely because of the gender solidarity in a world that’s still, for the most part, patriarchal.
This affair was just hijacked by the media to badmouth a religion (actually that was the thread’s stated purpose). Just look at Schwarz’s posts here. He’s making no sense at all. He’s arguing that the judgment was bad based solely on what Muslims are doing in Germany. It’s getting really thick and borders on gratuitous hatred.
[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
lixy wrote:
Women, in case you didn’t notice, have a natural drive for pair-boding. Men, on the other hand, are all for spreading seeds all over the place.
I don’t think you can back this statement up.[/quote]
Sperm is cheap,eggs are expensive?(Metaphorically speaking)
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Sperm is cheap,eggs are expensive?(Metaphorically speaking)[/quote]
That’s not metaphoric, it’s literal.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Sperm is cheap,eggs are expensive?(Metaphorically speaking)
That’s not metaphoric, it’s literal.[/quote]
Only if you’re paying for either…
If they’d just separate marriage from law then there wouldn’t be all these troublesome things.
I think the best way for these polygamists to go about things is to do divorce. Get married to and divorce each wife in succession: in the end have them all divorced. Just for social purposes, pretend the divorce doesn’t count, but for legal purposes it does.
If the wives all acknowledge this, they have the pleasure of saying they waited until after marriage to give themselves away (in this case after it ended, not began, but who’s counting?) and the courts won’t accuse the man of fooling the wives because they all know they are divorced.