|
Post by rembrandt84 on Jan 21, 2013 11:51:57 GMT
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_convenience Definition of MOC A marriage of convenience (plural marriages of convenience) is a marriage contracted for reasons other than the reasons of relationship, family, or love. Instead, such a marriage is orchestrated for personal gain or some other sort of strategic purpose, such as political marriage. In the cases when it represents a fraud, it is called sham marriage. Homosexual: Another common reason for marriages of convenience is to hide one partner's homosexuality in cases where being openly gay is punishable or potentially detrimental. A sham marriage of this type, known as the lavender marriage, may thus create the appearance of heterosexuality. Such marriages may have one heterosexual and one gay partner, or two gay partners: a lesbian and a gay man married to each other. In the case where a gay man marries a woman, the woman is said to be his "beard". I Sikhism this is completely opposite to the principles. One can't do it in front of the Guru. But feel free to do it in the registry by suppressing your conscience. The woman is said to be his "beard", since when does the woman becomes the beard in Sikhism? She is considered to be equal. These are social laws of MOC, it is to fit in. Why do you have to fit in? One can ask why many saabat soorat shave off their hairs just to fit in. Read more: sarbat.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=459&page=3#ixzz2Ibt4ZriN
|
|
|
Post by sw222uk on Jan 22, 2013 2:42:38 GMT
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_convenience Definition of MOC A marriage of convenience (plural marriages of convenience) is a marriage contracted for reasons other than the reasons of relationship, family, or love. Instead, such a marriage is orchestrated for personal gain or some other sort of strategic purpose, such as political marriage. In the cases when it represents a fraud, it is called sham marriage. Homosexual: Another common reason for marriages of convenience is to hide one partner's homosexuality in cases where being openly gay is punishable or potentially detrimental. A sham marriage of this type, known as the lavender marriage, may thus create the appearance of heterosexuality. Such marriages may have one heterosexual and one gay partner, or two gay partners: a lesbian and a gay man married to each other. In the case where a gay man marries a woman, the woman is said to be his "beard". I Sikhism this is completely opposite to the principles. One can't do it in front of the Guru. But feel free to do it in the registry by suppressing your conscience. The woman is said to be his "beard", since when does the woman becomes the beard in Sikhism? She is considered to be equal. These are social laws of MOC, it is to fit in. Why do you have to fit in? One can ask why many saabat soorat shave off their hairs just to fit in. Read more: sarbat.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=459&page=3#ixzz2Ibt4ZriNReally? The wikipedia definition? Applied to every scenario or those of us sikhs looking for a like minded Sikh who wants the same, for ourselves and our families Who's to judge that. Completely with jalebi girl and others in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by sarbat on Jan 22, 2013 6:00:45 GMT
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_of_convenience Definition of MOC A marriage of convenience (plural marriages of convenience) is a marriage contracted for reasons other than the reasons of relationship, family, or love. Instead, such a marriage is orchestrated for personal gain or some other sort of strategic purpose, such as political marriage. In the cases when it represents a fraud, it is called sham marriage. Homosexual: Another common reason for marriages of convenience is to hide one partner's homosexuality in cases where being openly gay is punishable or potentially detrimental. A sham marriage of this type, known as the lavender marriage, may thus create the appearance of heterosexuality. Such marriages may have one heterosexual and one gay partner, or two gay partners: a lesbian and a gay man married to each other. In the case where a gay man marries a woman, the woman is said to be his "beard". I Sikhism this is completely opposite to the principles. One can't do it in front of the Guru. But feel free to do it in the registry by suppressing your conscience. The woman is said to be his "beard", since when does the woman becomes the beard in Sikhism? She is considered to be equal. These are social laws of MOC, it is to fit in. Why do you have to fit in? One can ask why many saabat soorat shave off their hairs just to fit in. Read more: sarbat.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=459&page=3#ixzz2Ibt4ZriNI'm abit confused with your statements. Could you please explain it to me.
|
|
|
Post by quantumdesi on Jan 22, 2013 9:13:06 GMT
Yeah agreed - definitely confusing!!
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt84 on Jan 22, 2013 9:55:59 GMT
This doesn't need more explanation. Let me know if you have actually come across someone in MOC. This is a lawful definition of MOC and reasons why it is carried out. Clearly, the whole MOC is misunderstood by you lot. You need explanation, this is the most basic of the languages in which MOC can be defined. I haven't made it up but provided you with a reference. Wikipedia has more links where you can access more information for MOC. Please have the concept cleared out within your heads and then have a healthy discussion about MOC.
It is not confusing but against the ideologies you people share about MOC and asking for explanation shows how much in denial you people are, really. This is simple English and the explanation is good enough.
|
|
|
Post by quantumdesi on Jan 22, 2013 19:15:20 GMT
Lol bless you Yaar. Assi taan gareeb punjabi bande yaan. Eni Parai no kithi.....
However, I'm pretty sure there is no statutory definition for "marriage of convenience". There are no laws legislating it.
I'm more than happy to be corrected!! Do you have any advice from the CAB (which I'm assuming stands for Citizen's Advice Bureau - a veritable bastion of legal knowledge).
I don't have a personal problem with you my friend. More a sense of confusion emanating from your various posts across the forum. It's great that you're so active though! We need more people talking on here! I just reckon if we're nicer to each other then more people will post - I fear between you, me and JB, we might be scaring people away....!
|
|
|
Post by quantumdesi on Jan 27, 2013 20:28:30 GMT
Hmmm then we need to make that clear in some sort of a terms of use stickie. It would also be good to know what the test is.
Rembrandt has been pretty offensive to many people in his posts - I just transposed his aggression into a succinct statement.
I can rephrase - I was enquiring as to his proficiency in English and his legal background. He posts in a style that suggests he is an authority on the subject, but at the same time his posts read erratically and often make little sense.
|
|
|
Post by quantumdesi on Jan 27, 2013 20:32:17 GMT
Summer - nice post - I don't take issue with Rembrandts opinions or views - he is totally entitled to them. The whole point of posting though is to elicit opinions. I take issue with him characterising MoCs as something recognised in law - he is totally wrong and misguided on that. I also take issue with why he has issues with MoCs, but I have not commented on that. His MoC issues are his own personal issues - the other point was matter-of-fact and I wanted to challenge him on it. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong..... But i'm not
|
|
|
Post by awesomesikh on Jan 28, 2013 1:07:58 GMT
And, you talk about not judging others, but you put up a comment that calls him a freshie. Surely, that is not acceptable. Quantamdesi, are your parents freshies? Are your grandparents freshies? Are your ancestors freshies? Is your Guru a freshie? If you want to make fun of people from your Motherland, why don't you join the BNP? Are you out to your freshie parents? +1 Summer Bhenji, In the past too. I had to warn a member for using such derogatory terms in one of his posts. Its a shame that our well educated Sikh youth indulge in such things. sarbat.proboards.com/index.cgi
|
|
|
Post by veer on Jan 28, 2013 16:10:09 GMT
My main problem with MOC is that the mere reason behind it is fear and fear is one of the worst motivations to do anything especially when it comes to decisions that effect the rest of our lives. Either giving in to fear or living in it damages the soul and deforms personality. When we are driven by fear we can not talk about choice or free will because our internalized and sometimes invisible fear makes the decisions for us and makes us believe that it is the right thing to do. Which actually means that other people are in control of our lives therefore we are compromising our abilities and supressing our own freedom and creativity just to please them in order to keep the peace and to avoid rejection. But is it worth it?
|
|
|
Post by Jalebi Girl on Jan 30, 2013 19:38:49 GMT
As shocking as it may appear it IS possible to have a 'civilised' discussion, with a difference in opinion, without mud-slinging and name calling. Yes who'd of thought, freedom of expression exists in the 21st century! ;)It would be greatly appreciated if everyone bared this in mind. Let's all try to put ill feelings aside and debate reasonably. It is true that Rembrandt had went on the 'attack' in many of his posts recently which unsurprisingly gave rise to defensive responses.
Summer, you made your point well but you weren't on the receiving end of personal messages from Rembrant expressing his disdain at having had an inappropriate thread re-located to another forum. It was beginning to border on obsessive, I did try to reason with him on several occasions.
It is also true that it's unfair to put the blame squarely with Quantum, he's not the only person who has thrown that term around and quite frankly some of Rembrandts responses have been far worse - although they're probably edited by now as many of his posts appear to be -
Needless to say, MOC is a matter of perspective. I paticularly enjoyed reading Veers mature perspective about MOC perhaps stemming from a state of fear. I would like to think we operate by freedom of choice, the choice should be available to people to have an MOC. Some people may be coming from very strict backgrounds. We're even talking forced marriage by coersion and other means, for some it really might be the only option 'at the time' and we should endeavour to respect that and each other.
|
|
|
Post by quantumdesi on Feb 4, 2013 18:15:16 GMT
Maffi Jazzy you're totally right.... So what so you reckon about MOCs - especially with the whole gay marriage thing going on? Imagine the scenario where u get into a MoC now but gay marriage is legalised and 15 years down the line a Gurdwara decides to performs same sex marriages.... What do you do.... Total hypothetical of course!!
|
|
|
Post by Jazzy on Feb 5, 2013 17:19:33 GMT
No need to apologies quantum.. actions speak louder than words. Everyone just needs to respect each others opinions and remember everyone is different!! Well I understand why people do it but I still think its the wrong thing to do! I hope one day marriage is something that is universal for everyone no matter your sexuality and people still have the option for civil partnerships also! Haha ok well in a hypo situation like that I would probably feel low and want to end my life!! Like iv said in previous posts.. the long term effects are immense! You can have a read of my previous posts where I have written more. I wrote a dissertation about 3/4 years ago about civil partnerships and touched on the topic of MOCs.. and MY opinion still has not changed.
|
|
|
Post by mockaur2013 on Aug 17, 2013 15:17:03 GMT
Read all of your posts with interest.
I am from the legal profession. I see a lot of broken homes with children. Heterosexuals who once thought they were in love. All ages, colours, faith and religions.
An MOC would offer stability and here's how it works. The only reason anybody would want to enter into an MOC is surely because they CANNOT disclose their true sexuality to their family, out of respect, culture, community etc. Therefore to keep all happy, if 2 like minded people were to enter into an arrangement (MOC) that they will continue with their own lives, put up a common front in front of family and friends and bring 2 children (their children conceived naturally i.e. sex for conception only or IVF) then whose lost out and where's the damage? The children would much love 2 parents who loved them and stayed together than 2 parents who hated each other and where the children were caught up in the battle!
I know 3 couples who have had MOC and they all have children and are extremely happy! I am now looking for one following my Divorce. I am with a hindu man but owing to my parents being so respected within the community - I cannot and will not place my needs above my fathers by having a public relationship. Instead, I will front it with a MOC and will enjoy my relationship with my partner.
|
|
|
Post by Jazzy on Aug 20, 2013 23:10:58 GMT
Although I dont agree with your reasons for having an moc.. I understand why. Good luck with it mockaur.
|
|