Divorce in Sikhism

[Ranjeet01]

9 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

the polygamy was more about social status and showing off their wealth by buying more brides/ acquiring kingdoms by acquiring wives from kingdoms wanted (kind of like a bizarre monopoly game) or protecting the clan wealth by giving away girls to threateners e.g. Rajputs/Marathas . Women being considered Chattels allows this to happen but Guru Sahiban shut down this mentality by stating that Sikhs should neither buy nor sell their children i.e. no daaj to sweeten the deal and no accepting of bride prices i.e. a second way of shutting down giving Sikh women to Muslims/Hindus.

 

Maybe you are going to freak but there are areas in India and abroad where polyandry is the ideal model... but I guess that would turn your theories on their head  and make you squirm .

Polygyny seems to something that can be done by males in apex of society. It is not something that is really possible for the average man.

Even in muslim societies,  I wonder how many men partake in polygyny. Very few I suspect. 

Ultimately, the only type of men that can do this are men who can provide resources for their wives. 

The only lower type men that I can think of who partake in polygyny are the mormons. 

I am also aware of the polyandry and it does not make me squirm. 

[Not2Cool2Argue]

3 hours ago, ipledgeblue said:

It should only really be those who can pass good values through the panth, raise those who can spread positive thinking in the panth. For example, only those who can pass bravery to their sikh children, and also gurmat. So during crisis, those offspring Singhs and Singhnis can also cause ths spirit to awaken in other sikhs. Or they can spead positive message towards keeping kesh and gurmatt lifestyle, and against doing kurehit like kesh beadbi and tobaccoo/shisha/hookah etc.

Just breeding more children does not make them good people. Its raising them. And if u have multiple children. Its harder to manage them and teach each individually. 

Also sikh numbers came more from converts than their own children. As most sikhs lived in jungles and got shaheed young. They modt likely did not marry. Thise that did got shaheed before their kids grew up. Mostly women raised the sikh children in villages like bhai taru singh was raised and jassa singh ahluwalia. And lots of ppl were inspired by sikhs and turned sikh. Like bhai mani singh ji inspired bhai taru singh ji

[BhForce]

3 hours ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

Just breeding more children does not make them good people. Its raising them. And if u have multiple children. Its harder to manage them and teach each individually. 

That's actually not true, bro. More children usually means more religious children. 

For one thing, in large families, each individual child has less pull on the head of the family. The head is more respected, and therefore the children obey more. They learn that they are not the be all and end all. That there is someone above them.

Why would you want to teach them individually? It is considered more effective to teach people as a  group. Guru Sahibs call this concept Sangat. Humans are social animals, and the more people that follow a certain thing, the more firm they are likely to be in that belief.

Furthermore, in a typical two-child family, there's one girl, one boy. Each has new clothes and other stuff for every year of their life. They get an entitled mentality. A single child is the apex of entitlement mentality. 

In large families, clothes and other items get handed down. Both the giver and receiver learn to decrease their moh-maya and haumai regarding material things. And that's the basis of religion.

[Not2Cool2Argue]

On 22/02/2018 at 7:05 PM, BhForce said:

That's actually not true, bro. More children usually means more religious children. 

For one thing, in large families, each individual child has less pull on the head of the family. The head is more respected, and therefore the children obey more. They learn that they are not the be all and end all. That there is someone above them.

Why would you want to teach them individually? It is considered more effective to teach people as a  group. Guru Sahibs call this concept Sangat. Humans are social animals, and the more people that follow a certain thing, the more firm they are likely to be in that belief.

Furthermore, in a typical two-child family, there's one girl, one boy. Each has new clothes and other stuff for every year of their life. They get an entitled mentality. A single child is the apex of entitlement mentality. 

In large families, clothes and other items get handed down. Both the giver and receiver learn to decrease their moh-maya and haumai regarding material things. And that's the basis of religion.

Good points. I agree having many siblings and even cousins around is great.  But i was referring to big families in the context of polygamy. There the father has a very minimal role in my opinion. When watching FLDS cult videos, the wives complain that they dont see their husband enough. So i doubt the children do. And the animosity and jeolousy that develops within the wives is not healthy for the family. 

[BhForce]

1 hour ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

Good points. I agree having many siblings and even cousins around is great.  But i was referring to big families in the context of polygamy. There the father has a very minimal role in my opinion. When watching FLDS cult videos, the wives complain that they dont see their husband enough. So i doubt the children do. And the animosity and jeolousy that develops within the wives is not healthy for the family. 

Yeah, one of the problems with FLDS (fundamentalist Mormons) is that it's not merely arranged marriage, but forced marriage. That too, underage marriage. Plus a whole bunch of other abusive cult tactics.