5yr-old Thai twins forced to marry each other

[Rlyeh]

2 hours ago, Occupational Hubris said:

Marrying twins, for example, depending on context. In this case, it's purely ceremonial and so that the y don't have "bad luck" teh rets of their lives. They'r enot intende dto live as a married couple.

No it means they have a bat**** insane family.

[Occupational Hubris]

29 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

No it means they have a bat**** insane family.

Well, yeah. Religion makes people ****ing nuts and behave like idiots. 

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Curious custom. Some Easterners find it equally curious that Westerners give names to their dogs.

Like hot, pop, curried, kebab, stew?  

[Mr Walker]

Quote  

Despite the extravagant wedding the marriage is not legally  valid, and was  orchestrated for ceremonial purposes.

Nothing to see here folks.

They looked like my partner and I at my first miniature deb ball.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Mr Walker

[the13bats]

5 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

So do you believe it is moral? 

If not then why defend something that is immoral?

Do you defend slavery as long as it's another culture doing it? How about sex slaves with minors?

As humans we decide what is moral and what is not. What metrics do you use? Or do you just allow all forms of horror because it's what someone else is fine with.

 

Hammerkip has from his posts on here shown me he has very low or no morals.

You are wasting time talking sense to him i put him on ignore way back.

[Rlyeh]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Quote  

Despite the extravagant wedding the marriage is not legally  valid, and was  orchestrated for ceremonial purposes.

Nothing to see here folks.

They looked like my partner and I at my first miniature deb ball.

You married your sister too?

[openozy]

11 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Curious custom. Some Easterners find it equally curious that Westerners give names to their dogs.

Probably because it's like giving a name to a burger to them.

[openozy]

6 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Moral judgmentalism.

They are 5 year olds. I'd hardly call stopping the closest inbreeding of babies judgmental. You can't be serious.

[Tom1200]

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I agree with his point that people should not think themselves "above" other people due to some cultures having practices that we have moved past. 

I just disagree with the idea of not critiquing practices we think are wrong simply because it's a different culture. The whole moral relativism thing. 

This began with a sensational headline - "twins forced to marry".  Are Catholic children "forced" to be baptised?  "Forced" into first Holy Communion, confession, confirmation, etc.?  Do we "force" our children to go to school, or brush their teeth, or look before crossing the road?  Are we "forcing" our children, or are we simply doing what we believe is for their greater good?

So if the headline had said "parents perform religious ceremony to bless/protect their children" (which is how I now interpret this story) would any of us have read further or felt the need to respond?

My initial thought was revulsion - this is wrong.  Not morally - physically.  Consanguineous relationships lead to severe genetic problems; they are taboo in most cultures, for very good reasons.  This view wasn't helped by the ambiguous quote by the father, "the twins have to fulfil their marital destiny so that their future children can grow up healthy".  But after reading others' posts I can see the fuller picture and I realise my gut reaction was not correct.

The discussion that developed in this thread was, "should anyone care what I think about someone's culture (if it doesn't directly affect me)?", leading to questions like "should I even have an opinion about someone's culture?" and "should I ever try to interfere to change someone's culture?"

Question two is easiest to answer - of course: I'm entitled to have an opinion on anything.  I'm allowed to hold a view, and express it, and justify it if confronted.  Similarly I will defend my own cultural practices when they are challenged, so in a way I'm answering question one as well.  I can have an opinion, and express it, but that doesn't mean anyone has to care what I think.

But question three is altogether more difficult.  Suppose I had a strong view on circumcision, and thought it wrong (except for medical reasons).  Suppose I campaigned for it to be banned, and whipped up enough support to outlaw the practice, thereby criminalising this important rite of Islam and Judaism.  Or should I rather devote my efforts to abolishing FGM instead?  Or ending slavery?  Should I never be allowed to challenge the present because of the legacy of my ancestors' xenophobic imperialism and proselytising?

[XenoFish]

This turned into a right big **** show.

[Piney]

6 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

This turned into a right big **** show.

Slow week. 

[XenoFish]

From what I read it is purely symbolic and not a legit wedding. A strange tradition, but nothing real to it. I'm going to assume they can marry other people when they are of age to do so.

[+Hammerclaw]

48 minutes ago, openozy said:

They are 5 year olds. I'd hardly call stopping the closest inbreeding of babies judgmental. You can't be serious.

It was ceremonial, only, to keep the evil spirits at bay or something. Of course it's judgmental--you're judging it aren't you?

[Crazy Horse]

7 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

 

What metrics do you use to decide right and wrong?

 

If I may throw-in my two cents worth.

The best metrics I have found are the most simplest.

If you are not hurting anyone, which includes taking away their freedom, then its down to the individual to square it with themselves.

As individuals we should be allowed to make mistakes, and fail, hurting ourselves in the process. It how all the best lessons are learnt. But, to deliberately set out to harm another person, and to intentionally disrupt their lives, is morally, and ethically, wrong.

 

[openozy]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

It was ceremonial, only, to keep the evil spirits at bay or something. Of course it's judgmental--you're judging it aren't you?

I'm a very open minded person but this is wrong on a deep level. The way it was worded sounded like they were encouraging these siblings to have kids together. I wouldn't even breed chickens that close.

[+Hammerclaw]

6 hours ago, openozy said:

I'm a very open minded person but this is wrong on a deep level. The way it was worded sounded like they were encouraging these siblings to have kids together. I wouldn't even breed chickens that close.

They're five years old. They won't be consummating their "marriage" ant time soon.

[openozy]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

They're five years old. They won't be consummating their "marriage" ant time soon.

And hopefully never.

[TashaMarie]

Another headline designed to stoke the fire before you read the story.  As they have stated it was for ceremonial purposes only, I do not feel that they are seeing this as a real marriage, therefore I see no harm to it.  

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

This began with a sensational headline - "twins forced to marry".  Are Catholic children "forced" to be baptised?  "Forced" into first Holy Communion, confession, confirmation, etc.?  Do we "force" our children to go to school, or brush their teeth, or look before crossing the road?  Are we "forcing" our children, or are we simply doing what we believe is for their greater good?

So if the headline had said "parents perform religious ceremony to bless/protect their children" (which is how I now interpret this story) would any of us have read further or felt the need to respond?

My initial thought was revulsion - this is wrong.  Not morally - physically.  Consanguineous relationships lead to severe genetic problems; they are taboo in most cultures, for very good reasons.  This view wasn't helped by the ambiguous quote by the father, "the twins have to fulfil their marital destiny so that their future children can grow up healthy".  But after reading others' posts I can see the fuller picture and I realise my gut reaction was not correct.

The discussion that developed in this thread was, "should anyone care what I think about someone's culture (if it doesn't directly affect me)?", leading to questions like "should I even have an opinion about someone's culture?" and "should I ever try to interfere to change someone's culture?"

Question two is easiest to answer - of course: I'm entitled to have an opinion on anything.  I'm allowed to hold a view, and express it, and justify it if confronted.  Similarly I will defend my own cultural practices when they are challenged, so in a way I'm answering question one as well.  I can have an opinion, and express it, but that doesn't mean anyone has to care what I think.

But question three is altogether more difficult.  Suppose I had a strong view on circumcision, and thought it wrong (except for medical reasons).  Suppose I campaigned for it to be banned, and whipped up enough support to outlaw the practice, thereby criminalising this important rite of Islam and Judaism.  Or should I rather devote my efforts to abolishing FGM instead?  Or ending slavery?  Should I never be allowed to challenge the present because of the legacy of my ancestors' xenophobic imperialism and proselytising?

Good post, but many dont even seem to have actually read the article. This"marriage" was the equivalent of a baptism or christening. A ceremony to protect a child's soul, with no legal or civil standing. The kids wont be married in the legal sense. They won't be expected to have sex or children, and will be able to legally marry others when adult.

The bit about having kids referred to the spiritual concept that this ceremony will keep them alive and healthy, thus allowing them to have children as adults, when married to others. The parents feared that, without this ceremony, the kids might not live long enough, or remain well enough, to supply them with grandchildren. A superstious belief but no different than  many Christian ones, and not harmful in any way.

Ps the question of consanguinity is an interesting one. There is no doubt that genetically ,diversity is more healthy and that prolonged consanguinity can induce / compound genetic defects.

However, as close as first cousins, there appears to be no, or extremely low, risk. Some countries ban first cousins' marriages, while others allow it.

Also one off, or incidental, consanguinity   may not be so serious..It has always seemed harsh to me when a couple, sometimes with children, discover they are siblings.

Their marriage is nullified, and any future relationship becomes illegal. With the break down and dispersion of families, this will become a more serious or common problem.

It is a case where, IMO, a little more compassion, and a little less legalism should be applied.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Mr Walker

[openozy]

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 

However as close as first cousins there appears to be no, or extremely low, risk. Some countries ban first cousins marriages while others allow it

I've lived in remote places a fair part of my life and first cousins marrying is a bad idea. It might not be proven but the ones I've met have a scattered way of thinking about them, I've seen the same thing in close bred animals. In Oz you can marry your cousin or even aunt or uncle, bad idea all round.

[Mr Walker]

56 minutes ago, openozy said:

I've lived in remote places a fair part of my life and first cousins marrying is a bad idea. It might not be proven but the ones I've met have a scattered way of thinking about them, I've seen the same thing in close bred animals. In Oz you can marry your cousin or even aunt or uncle, bad idea all round.

Its more a cultural than a medical reality, in populations with access to a diverse gene pool, which I think is why Australia allows it, based on the science .

However, in any isolated community, generational inbreeding may have tragic results.

These days, with full genetic testing being cheap and accessible,  it should be easier to avoid genetic problems. Ps are you sure we can marry an Aunt or Uncle? I thought first cousin was the closest legally allowed.

Just checked and you are right. Apparently we have less rigid restrictions than some countries.

pps Country people  have a different way of thinking to city slickers.  It's a subtle difference, but significantly different way of thinking, driven by living in very different environments and societies .I must admit  that I prefer country mentality to that of the city ( appreciating that this is a wide generalisation.) They aren't slower or dumber,  although they may be more slow in their considerations, because they have time to be. They are also more conservative /traditional and a bit resistant to new ideas because they are practical peolke and stick with ways that are proven to work.

What I am getting at is that I have noted the same thing as you about small communities, but I think it is social rather than genetic. Plus the brightest, most educated,  and liberal minded, tend to move away and not return.

Lastly, while there is a small additional risk  for a future child, in marrying a first cousin, it about the same as  a woman having a child in her thirties, rather than her teens.

Edited March 8, 2021 by Mr Walker

[+Hammerclaw]

6 hours ago, TashaMarie said:

Another headline designed to stoke the fire before you read the story.  As they have stated it was for ceremonial purposes only, I do not feel that they are seeing this as a real marriage, therefore I see no harm to it.  

There isn't, but the Beaver Cleavers, Reggie Cunninghams and Marsha Bradys of the forums are all tore up about it.

[TashaMarie]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

There isn't, but the Beaver Cleavers, Reggie Cunninghams and Marsha Bradys of the forums are all tore up about it.

I get that and if it wasn't  ceremonial I would be too.  

[Tom1200]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The question of consanguinity is an interesting one. There is no doubt that genetically ,diversity is more healthy and that prolonged consanguinity can induce / compound genetic defects.

... It has always seemed harsh to me when a couple, sometimes with children, discover they are siblings.

I'd like to know what the facts are on this.  It's not my area (probably nothing is my area) so my views are guided by the bits I think I understand of stuff I read.  I've always believed that inbreeding produced ghastly mutants like the European royal families.  How do 'the people who measure this sort of thing' measure this sort of thing?

On point two above: I follow your argument, and if it is a genuine coincidence then yes, the law ought to show compassion.  As with point one it's something I know nothing about: does it happen very often?

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

I'd like to know what the facts are on this.  It's not my area (probably nothing is my area) so my views are guided by the bits I think I understand of stuff I read.  I've always believed that inbreeding produced ghastly mutants like the European royal families.  How do 'the people who measure this sort of thing' measure this sort of thing?

Among Eastern Native Americans it breaks chromosomes, deleting genes. Among Pine Barren and Ramapough Lenape I've seen 3 fingers, 6 fingers, retardation, missing organs and full blown Williams Syndrome. 

Even though I'm "outcrossed" I have a chromosomal disorder which is found among a prominent family.