Hindu son can divorce wife if she tries to separate him from aged parents

[zen]

27 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Since where the couples live, is a socio-economic system, it is changing with the modern reality of India and as such, incumbent system is also changing.

Things dictated by socio-economic conditions, such as whether you live in an apartment with your wife and kids or villa with 3 generations of all,  change seamlessly. Its moralistic concepts- such as not having multiple sexual partners after marriage/spouse getting inheritance rights for fellow spouse's property & income, etc. that are far more inflexible and subject to resistance through the times.

As I said, it is all factored into the incumbent system

 

My stand is that I agree with the title - Hindu son can divorce wife if she tries to separate him from aged parents 

 

What is it that you are trying to debate / discuss?

 

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by zen

[Muloghonto]

8 minutes ago, zen said:

I don't think you are understanding what is being implied esp when you say things such as marriage purpose is for ease of travel abroad 

 

Being "married" to someone is a responsibility. Many times, the girl is less than 25 years old with no job. The husband is the key bread earner. Many times, the girl is married in a different city / state / country. Do you think a daughter gets married off, esp in an arrange marriage scenario, without considering what support she could get from the husband's family?

 

 

But why is that seen as 'i have no more responsibility towards my daughter, now its up to the husband and his family to take responsibility of her' ? What part of that isn't just being bad parents ?
hiding behind 'reeti-rewaaj' doesnt change the fact that if you consider your responsibility fulfilled because someone else came along, it makes you a bad parent. 

When you are a parent, you are responsible for your kid. Doesn't matter if your kid is male or female, has billions in the bank or is on income assistance or sitting on the roadside. He/she will always be the responsibility of their parents till the parents die. 

1 minute ago, zen said:

As I said, it is all factored into the incumbent system

 

My stand is that I agree with the title - Hindu son can divorce wife if she tries to separate him from aged parents 

 

What is it that you are trying to debate / discuss?

 

 

That i don't see that as a reason to agree with the thread title. I agree with it, because i think you should be free to divorce as you feel. No cause required. 'i don't want to be married anymore' is good enough reason. But if you believe that divorce needs a reason, then this reason is not sufficient. That is all i am saying.

 

[zen]

8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

But why is that seen as 'i have no more responsibility towards my daughter, now its up to the husband and his family to take responsibility of her' ? What part of that isn't just being bad parents ?
hiding behind 'reeti-rewaaj' doesnt change the fact that if you consider your responsibility fulfilled because someone else came along, it makes you a bad parent. 

When you are a parent, you are responsible for your kid. Doesn't matter if your kid is male or female, has billions in the bank or is on income assistance or sitting on the roadside. He/she will always be the responsibility of their parents till the parents die. 

Ideally and theoretically, yes. But than you have kids begging on streets, child labor, etc.

 

Many parents even consider it bad if the daughter stays at their (should be also her's) home for prolonged period. Sometimes thinking that others will spread rumors about her having problems in marriage 

 

Even, the property share is distributed less (if not zero) to the daughter considering she has her husband's family property 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by zen

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

Ideally and theoretically, yes. But than you have kids begging on streets, child labor, etc.

 

Many parents even consider it bad if the daughter stays at their (should be also her's) home for prolonged period. Sometimes thinking that others will spread rumors about her having problems in marriage 

 

Even, the property share is distributed less (if not zero) to the daughter considering she has her husband's family property 

 

 

 

 

 

You don't have kids on the street, child labor etc. if you have child subsidy. Like we do in Canada.....

All those things you listed, are simply example of how to be a bad parent. 

Husband also has rights to wife's property. So it makes no sense to give the girl less property because her husband has property. The same applies to the son and his wife too.

 

[zen]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

You don't have kids on the street, child labor etc. if you have child subsidy. Like we do in Canada.....

All those things you listed, are simply example of how to be a bad parent. 

Husband also has rights to wife's property. So it makes no sense to give the girl less property because her husband has property. The same applies to the son and his wife too.

 

We are looking at this based on the incumbent system in Ind

 

Theoretically, yes, but again how property is distributed depends upon "will" which can be biased depending upon the parents' view (not theories)

 

 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, zen said:

We are looking at this based on the incumbent system in Ind

 

Theoretically, yes, but again how property is distributed depends upon "will" which can be biased depending upon the parents' view (not theories)

 

 

 

 

So this basically proves that the 'incumbent system' encourages/facilitates bad parenting practices.

All the more reason to trash it.

[zen]

9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

So this basically proves that the 'incumbent system' encourages/facilitates bad parenting practices.

All the more reason to trash it.

I am not a fan of Ind current systems in general. Where kids beg, where children and women are exploited, where rape is a way of life (ppl use the term casually in jokes), where cleanliness and waste management is an alien concept, where planet and environment are not duly respected, where basic law and order such as traffic are not observed, where corruption prevails, etc. 

 

If the entire system needs to be changes, I agree. If the point is that changing  marriage laws or whatever related to it would alleviate bad parenting, I do not agree as bad parenting covers more issues such child labor, etc (including some more cruel ones)

 

I don't even know what you are discussing or debating. You have made comments ranging from "people get married so it is easy to travel abroad" to "what technically counts as what", which is not an issue for me as long as the big picture is satisfied 

 

And on the topic, based on the incumbent practises (whether technically related to marriage laws, socio-economic, or whatever), I feel that it is ok to divorce wife if she is a hurdle b/w husband and his family 

 

You wrote somewhere that  "agree with it, because i think you should be free to divorce as you feel. No cause required."  I don't agree with that as I see the act of marriage as act of responsibility to not only spouse but all those impacted by it including kids. There should be valid reasons for divorce 

 

[Texy]

Faults on both sides here I believe. 

 

Aging parents should be taken care of by their offsprings, no doubt.

 

But, Indian parents are way too dependent on their kids. They have to understand their kids have their own lives too and cannot sacrifice everything for them. Compared to that, White American parents are so independent, it is amazing. You can't force them to live with their kids as they do not want to be dependent on anybody. So refreshing and nice to see. 

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, zen said:

I am not a fan of Ind current systems in general. Where kids beg, where children and women are exploited, where rape is a way of life (ppl use the term casually in jokes), where cleanliness and waste management is an alien concept, where planet and environment are not duly respected, where basic law and order such as traffic are not observed, where corruption prevails, etc. 

 

If the entire system needs to be changes, I agree. If the point is that changing  marriage laws or whatever related to it would alleviate bad parenting, I do not agree as bad parenting covers more issues such child labor, etc (including some more cruel ones)

 

I don't even know what you are discussing or debating. You have made comments ranging from "people get married so it is easy to travel abroad" to "what technically counts as what", which is not an issue for me as long as the big picture is satisfied 

 

And on the topic, based on the incumbent practises (whether technically related to marriage laws, socio-economic, or whatever), I feel that it is ok to divorce wife if she is a hurdle b/w husband and his family 

 

You wrote somewhere that  "agree with it, because i think you should be free to divorce as you feel. No cause required."  I don't agree with that as I see the act of marriage as act of responsibility to not only spouse but all those impacted by it including kids. There should be valid reasons for divorce 

 

If you don't need a valid reason get married, then you also don't need a valid reason to get divorced. Most psychologists agree that it is better to grow up with divorced parents than grow up in a dysfunctional marriage of your parents. 

Marriage is not an act of responsibility, it is not defined as such anywhere. It is an act of officially declaring that you are off the market and committed. That can change and so should the marriage status as it changes. 

[zen]

36 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

If you don't need a valid reason get married, then you also don't need a valid reason to get divorced. Most psychologists agree that it is better to grow up with divorced parents than grow up in a dysfunctional marriage of your parents. 

Marriage is not an act of responsibility, it is not defined as such anywhere. It is an act of officially declaring that you are off the market and committed. That can change and so should the marriage status as it changes. 

I dont agree and again dont know what you are talking about when you say you dont need a valid reason to get married / divorce. There can be numerous possibilities but most probable scenarios would include ppl thinking it over (to find a valid reason and consider pro and cons of the action) before getting married / divorced .... you are making it sound as if such acts are like changing clothes 

 

Chronic discord can be a valid reason to get a divorse

 

For me, marriage is also an act of responsibility, not only towards the spouse, but also when raising kids .... you are only "off market" if you chose to be "off-market". You could be  "off-market" even if you are not married but in a serious relationship

 

To me it appears as if, you advocate freedom to do whatever. For e.g., you dont need a reason to do this or that whether it is marrage / divorce or eating a cup of ice cream.  Exceptions are used in your posts, along with strange points such as marrage being useful for traveling abroad, etc. Things also appear to be linear to you  .... On the other hand, I believe in law of diminishing returns where a certain line cannot be crossed. Yes, you are free to eat x amount of ice cream, but you cannot eat more than x -n for your own benefit, as after x-n, law of diminishing returns kicks in.  I also look at most probable scenarios and usually try to avoid exceptions (unless I m advocating or listening to a new point of view which many would not have considered before) 

 

Lets agree to disagree on this! 

Edited October 9, 2016 by zen

[Muloghonto]

There is this misconception that marriage is an act of responsibility when raising kids. It is not. Raising kids is about parenting. Not marriage.

Parenting is about being an adult guide towards growing human beings (children). To teach them, to correct them, to encourage them, to love them, etc. You don't need to be married for such a thing. 
Its been shown over and over again that it makes no difference towards raising a child, if the parents are married, unmarried (i.e., common law partnership) or if they are divorced but amicable and share responsibilities. Its also been shown over and over again that its better for children to be with one parent at a time, rather than two parents who are having a dysfunctional marriage.

 

And there is nothing 'strange' about marriage being useful for travel abroad. Here, in Canada, it makes no difference whether you are married or common law. Your rights, entitlements, etc. are all EXACTLY the same. The only difference is when you start to travel. Far easier to get visa for your wife/husband than your boyfriend/girlfriend.

 

[zen]

35 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

There is this misconception that marriage is an act of responsibility when raising kids. It is not. Raising kids is about parenting. Not marriage.

Parenting is about being an adult guide towards growing human beings (children). To teach them, to correct them, to encourage them, to love them, etc. You don't need to be married for such a thing. 
Its been shown over and over again that it makes no difference towards raising a child, if the parents are married, unmarried (i.e., common law partnership) or if they are divorced but amicable and share responsibilities. Its also been shown over and over again that its better for children to be with one parent at a time, rather than two parents who are having a dysfunctional marriage.

 

And there is nothing 'strange' about marriage being useful for travel abroad. Here, in Canada, it makes no difference whether you are married or common law. Your rights, entitlements, etc. are all EXACTLY the same. The only difference is when you start to travel. Far easier to get visa for your wife/husband than your boyfriend/girlfriend.

 

Instead of trying to look at the big picture, you are unnecessarily focusing on technicalities 

 

Yes, you can have kids without getting married (it is an understood point). I dont see a point in writing a post on what is obvious to everyone. Once again marriage is an act of responsibility as it usually involves not only adding a new member to the family in form of spouse but also planning to add to the family tree. Once you have kids, parenting kicks in. But all these usually starts with marriage .... And before you think about writing a post on marraiges can be had without kids, let me remind you that it is an "understood" point   

 

And I already said that chronic discord can be a valid reason for divorce. So who is debating that families with chronic discords (dysfunctional) and kids should not consider divorce as an option?  

 

It is stange when you say that "only" reason to get married is to get visa to travel abroad. Correct me if i m wrong that you did not mention that as a partvof your initial 4 points

 

I live in Canada too. Since you like to be hyper-technical, note that the discussion is in context of India (the situation in India) 

 

PS

9 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

The only real reason to get married is it eases paperwork when travelling. Lot easier to get visa for wife/husband than girlfriend/boyfriend. 

Here you go^ 

Edited October 9, 2016 by zen

[rkt.india]

Marriage doesn't have responsibility, first time I have heard something like this. Your wife is your first responsibility and if you fail to fulfill that and it comes to divorce, see how much compensation you will have to pay to your wife.

[sandeep]

Interesting hypothetical discussion you guys are having.  I have lived this scenario.  And have seen and experienced how people's moralities change when it comes to real life.