Jump to content

Divorce in Sikhism


Big_Tera
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 2/20/2018 at 8:28 PM, jkvlondon said:

but he also says later that if the husband becomes nastik a wife has the right to disassociate herself from him .

That's a bit inaccurate.

First of all, Jesus didn't say that, Paul did (or something close to it).

Second, what you're describing is: 2 people are Christian, and then one becomes an unbeliever, so the believer gets a right to divorce. That is explicitly not allowed by Canon Law.

What Paul actually said is this:

To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband ... and that the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say, not the Lord, ... But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.

(1 Corinthians 7:10-15)

What that means in effect is that if two non-Christians get married, one gets baptized into Christianity, and the non-believer divorces, then the Christian is free to marry without penalty from the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BhForce said:

That's a bit inaccurate.

First of all, Jesus didn't say that, Paul did (or something close to it).

Second, what you're describing is: 2 people are Christian, and then one becomes an unbeliever, so the believer gets a right to divorce. That is explicitly not allowed by Canon Law.

What Paul actually said is this:

To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband ... and that the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say, not the Lord, ... But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.

(1 Corinthians 7:10-15)

What that means in effect is that if two non-Christians get married, one gets baptized into Christianity, and the non-believer divorces, then the Christian is free to marry without penalty from the Church.

well bro what does disassociate mean to you ...I heard seperation of ways , but also I understood it to be a grey area since canon law still maintains that they are married despite the dharmic arth of the instruction..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

well bro what does disassociate mean to you ...I heard seperation of ways , but also I understood it to be a grey area since canon law still maintains that they are married despite the dharmic arth of the instruction..

I'm not quibbling over the import of the word "disassociate". What I'm saying is that your statement implied that if your husband (or wife) becomes an atheist you can divorce him. 

And I said that that is specifically disallowed in Canon Law.

On the other hand, if you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife divorces you, you have not violated anything if you remarry.

But:

If you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife does not divorce you, you cannot divorce him/her in Canon Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, BhForce said:

I'm not quibbling over the import of the word "disassociate". What I'm saying is that your statement implied that if your husband (or wife) becomes an atheist you can divorce him. 

And I said that that is specifically disallowed in Canon Law.

On the other hand, if you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife divorces you, you have not violated anything if you remarry.

But:

If you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife does not divorce you, you cannot divorce him/her in Canon Law.

but we both know like sikhi has Anand Karaj only christians can marry in the church as it is consider one of the four sacraments of the faith (so according to what you said mixed faith couples are not covered in canon law)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/02/2018 at 3:02 PM, Ranjeet01 said:

Well, we live in a society where marriage is not valued, only for looking on the wedding day.

We live in a society where we no longer fix things, we just throw away things once they lose their usefulness. 

The human gene pool shows that at least 80 percent of men historically never had children, where at least 80 percent of women did. 

What this means before the advent of marriage, one man would have many women to have children with. This is what happens in the animal kingdom, where the alpha male will have his share of the females. 

The reality is (I might sound sexist, but it is largely true). Women have sexually selected men for resources and genetic material ).

What has happened is that women no longer value marriage with men because they do not require resources so for a lot of them all that is left is the Alpha stud.

The vast majority of men are not alpha studs, it is a very tiny percentage. Women will always go for a man that is the highest value, even if she herself are not of the same value.

Society seems to be regressing back to the pre-marital age  (like back to hunter gather type society).

It is very dangerous because potentially there maybe a lot of unmarried men in society.

From a Sikhi point of view, we are supposed to live a ghristi Jeevan life and the regression of society means it is going to be increasing difficult. 

Alot of ppl use that 80% rule to prove we are like animals. In that one male has many females. And some males have nothing.

Instead of reminding me of animals, it seems to point more to muslims. One man with his harems. And they did bride price, so only rich males can afford wives. So the rest go on slave hunts. 

This alpha male and his harem are not the only model found in nature. Some animals mate for life. Some mate then go different ways. Then mate with other partners. 

This modern day tendancy to use evolution (meaning how humans were before they were humans ie when they were a non intelligent species) or how animals live there life to live ours  Is very stupid. Paleo ppl with their diet and now ppl looking for solution to marriage and everything else from evolution is dumb. We evolved from there. Meaning changed for the better. 

But of course ancient culture should be followed.. and our biology and our natural instincts which women do have different then men. But most ancient cultures exalted monogamy and studies show that children do better in household with both mom and dad. And married couples are happier when elderly.

So yes monagamy is better for men and women. 

About that 80% statistic. It could be due to war, famine, invading hordes, rape. Also most invading ppl would kill all the men 15 years and older. And keep the women. Cant that explain the 80% rule?

 As the invaders were the 20% who  controled 80% of the women. In a famine, more females are born then men. As females can defininately reproduce but men are a risk from natures pov.In war most young men die leaving behind many women. This statistic only had to skew once. Then cant be rectified. So maybe it changed after Mahabharat. Or Fall of Troy? Or black death? As women safer at home men getting sicker? Or maybe in the past each generation, more and more men weeded out due to wars and famine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

Alot of ppl use that 80% rule to prove we are like animals. In that one male has many females. And some males have nothing.

Instead of reminding me of animals, it seems to point more to muslims. One man with his harems. And they did bride price, so only rich males can afford wives. So the rest go on slave hunts. 

This alpha male and his harem are not the only model found in nature. Some animals mate for life. Some mate then go different ways. Then mate with other partners. 

This modern day tendancy to use evolution (meaning how humans were before they were humans ie when they were a non intelligent species) or how animals live there life to live ours  Is very stupid. Paleo ppl with their diet and now ppl looking for solution to marriage and everything else from evolution is dumb. We evolved from there. Meaning changed for the better. 

But of course ancient culture should be followed.. and our biology and our natural instincts which women do have different then men. But most ancient cultures exalted monogamy and studies show that children do better in household with both mom and dad. And married couples are happier when elderly.

So yes monagamy is better for men and women. 

About that 80% statistic. It could be due to war, famine, invading hordes, rape. Also most invading ppl would kill all the men 15 years and older. And keep the women. Cant that explain the 80% rule?

 As the invaders were the 20% who  controled 80% of the women. In a famine, more females are born then men. As females can defininately reproduce but men are a risk from natures pov.In war most young men die leaving behind many women. This statistic only had to skew once. Then cant be rectified. So maybe it changed after Mahabharat. Or Fall of Troy? Or black death? As women safer at home men getting sicker? Or maybe in the past each generation, more and more men weeded out due to wars and famine?

Your points are valid and the 80/20 rule (Pareto principle ) is seen from maybe some of reasons you have pointed out.

However, certain traits are biologically hardwired into us and they probably impact our behaviours more than we realise.

I do not disagree with your points that monogamy is best. Our ancient cultures understood very well what worked to maintain a functioning society. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Your points are valid and the 80/20 rule (Pareto principle ) is seen from maybe some of reasons you have pointed out.

However, certain traits are biologically hardwired into us and they probably impact our behaviours more than we realise.

I do not disagree with your points that monogamy is best. Our ancient cultures understood very well what worked to maintain a functioning society. 

 

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 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Not2Cool2Argue said:

But of course ancient culture should be followed.. and our biology and our natural instincts which women do have different then men. But most ancient cultures exalted monogamy and studies show that children do better in household with both mom and dad. And married couples are happier when elderly.

So yes monagamy is better for men and women. 

About that 80% statistic. It could be due to war, famine, invading hordes, rape. Also most invading ppl would kill all the men 15 years and older. And keep the women. Cant that explain the 80% rule?

 As the invaders were the 20% who  controled 80% of the women. In a famine, more females are born then men. As females can defininately reproduce but men are a risk from natures pov.In war most young men die leaving behind many women. This statistic only had to skew once. Then cant be rectified. So maybe it changed after Mahabharat. Or Fall of Troy? Or black death? As women safer at home men getting sicker? Or maybe in the past each generation, more and more men weeded out due to wars and famine?

 

6 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I do not disagree with your points that monogamy is best. Our ancient cultures understood very well what worked to maintain a functioning society. 

 

Monogamy is good for grihast jeevan. But for wartime it is not good. Polygamy is required so more Singhs are born, and then these Singhs gave shaheedi during the wars, such as 4 Sahibazadey and Bhai Mani Singh's sons from both his wives.

This just wouldn't work for the small monogamous units that we have now. Monogamy has put the dharmi-fauji families in dire circumstances as there are no sons left to look after some of these families! Some of  them are in poverty! We need to follow rehit more closely, and sometimes monogamy is not compatible. The families that are going to supply real gursikh Singhs to the panth shouldn't be monogamous. And the ones that are going to supply negative people that bring down the panth, perhaps they should not marry at all. Let them go in their destructive path and spend the rest of their lives in girlfriend-boyfriend mentality. They will not be able to maintain real grihast until they have a mentality change.

3 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 .

Yes, like the pihari/hill people where the wife is shared between brothers, it is the way they seem to settle the lack of wealth due to the lack of land. And remember,  even Panchali Draupadi practiced polyandry with the Pandav warrior brothers.

 

.... The other thing is I cannot understand how current modern society can be pro-monogamy. The amount of ex-partner people have through girlfriend-boyfriend pre-marital partnership as well as through divorces shows an acute amount of hypocrisy/pakhand from these people, on how they are against polygamous marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ipledgeblue said:

Monogamy is good for grihast jeevan. But for wartime it is not good. Polygamy is required so more Singhs are born,

Bro, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Polygamy is often proposed as a solution to a lack of men after war, not as a way to breed an abundance of men before war. The men die off, there are few prospective husbands, so the few men that remain marry multiple women. That's one thing.

However, what you're proposing is kind of like what Modi thinks Muslims are doing in India: They marry 4 women apiece to breed 2 kids with each, so 8 kids total.

The problem with this thinking is that there's no magic woman factory that's overproducing women like chewing gum.

Let's say that there are 100 men (the example works for 100 million, too). That means there are (about) 100 women. It's not possible for 100 men to all take on 4 wives. That would require 400 women. Where are all those women supposed to come from?

When you say that the dharmi people will take on multiple wives, and the manmukhs will stay in boyfriend-girlfriend relationships doesn't work for the very same relationship: There's no abundance of women where the dharmi's will go to get wives. If 50% of the Sikhs are manmukhs, then likely 50% of men are manmukhs, and also 50% of women are manmukhs.

There are no extra women to go around for prospective polygamist men.

Don't misunderstand me. I've posted before on this board before on the fact that Guru Hargobind ji and Guru Gobind Singh ji had more than one Mehal.

However, I do not think we have to go around actively promoting polygamy like the Muslims do because they're afraid that their prophet will be denigrated if they don't.

It's one thing for a handful of people in a society to have multiple wives (like the leader or the Raja, or a few others). It's quite another for 50% of males to have 2 wives. That would obviously mean the other 50% will have no wife. 

Not a good situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BhForce said:

 

It's one thing for a handful of people in a society to have multiple wives (like the leader or the Raja, or a few others). It's quite another for 50% of males to have 2 wives. That would obviously mean the other 50% will have no wife. 

Not a good situation.

no not 50%. It was never 50% sikh males or 50% Singhs that had multiple wives. I was mostly either sikhs that were Rajas/Maharajas, or warrior shastard-dhari rehiti sikhs. Even during dharmi fauji activities, it wasn't 50% sikhs or 50% Singhs taking part even then.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use