Engaged?

[Damien Evans]

Once again, you act like The People's Front of Judea, battling for a man's right to have babies, even though he can't actually have babies.

Whether they have a party, a ring and a fuss is indeed up to the couple. The fact that their relationship is correctly defined as 'engaged' is not.

Better than the Judean Peoples Front. Bunch of splitters.

 

[CFLarsen]

Once again, you act like The People's Front of Judea, battling for a man's right to have babies, even though he can't actually have babies.

Whether they have a party, a ring and a fuss is indeed up to the couple. The fact that their relationship is correctly defined as 'engaged' is not.

It is not up to the couple. There are expectations and pressure, sometimes heavy, from society as well.

Not so long ago, it was expected that couples who lived together should marry - or else, they would be living in sin.

Fortunately, we have evolved a bit beyond that. But not so much as to escape the social pressure and expectations of engagement.

 

[Ian Osborne]

It is not up to the couple. There are expectations and pressure, sometimes heavy, from society as well.

Demonstrate that these social pressures and expectations are a defining factor in the term 'engagement'.

 

[CFLarsen]

Demonstrate that these social pressures and expectations are a defining factor in the term 'engagement'.

Take a look at various Islamic marriage and engagement rites.

No sex while being engaged. Not something that the couple decide on their own.

 

[athon]

No, I am not agreeing that you can't get married without being engaged. I am saying that it is inescapable that people are seen as engaged, whether they want to or not.

Why? Could it be because the commonly accepted definition of 'engagement' is 'intention to marry', therefore you can't get married without being engaged first?

Post #29.

Yeah, you said that. It said 'Same in Denmark' after I gave my definition. We covered that. So your definition of engagement agrees with our 'intent to marry' definition?

expectations of engagement

The only 'expectations' you've listed so far have been a) gift exchange, b) a party, and c) a notice in the paper. Yet you've also said this doesn't define engagement.

The only definition you provide is the same as ours. Therefore, it is possible to be engaged and not have those things. Thus, while such expectations may well be present, they don't define engagement. People can be engaged without them.

Athon

 

[Ian Osborne]

Take a look at various Islamic marriage and engagement rites.

No sex while being engaged. Not something that the couple decide on their own.

You haven't demonstrated that an engagement is part-defined by these rules and regulations that go with it in the culture you point to. If a muslim couple have sex during their engagement, does that mean they're no longer engaged?

 

[athon]

Take a look at various Islamic marriage and engagement rites.

Bwahaha. Man, it's pathetic what he'll do to squirm. Islamic engagement now ?

Listen; nobody denies that there aren't values, ceremonies, rules and laws that can be added to engagement. We could find a gazillion of them from all over the world. So, burn that straw man until it's dust; you're wasting your time, Claus, and further making yourself look like a complete fool.

The one thing they all have in common, though? Yup...you guessed it!

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

The only 'expectations' you've listed so far have been a) gift exchange, b) a party, and c) a notice in the paper. Yet you've also said this doesn't define engagement.

The only definition you provide is the same as ours. Therefore, it is possible to be engaged and not have those things. Thus, while such expectations may well be present, they don't define engagement. People can be engaged without them.

Take a look at the link in post #564. No defining of engagement? No societal pressure?

How do I "represent" skepticism?

You haven't demonstrated that an engagement is part-defined by these rules and regulations that go with it in the culture you point to.

You clearly haven't read the link: Part of being engaged means they can't have sex.

If a muslim couple have sex during their engagement, does that mean they're no longer engaged?

They'd probably be dead.

 

[CFLarsen]

Bwahaha. Man, it's pathetic what he'll do to squirm. Islamic engagement now ?

Listen; nobody denies that there aren't values, ceremonies, rules and laws that can be added to engagement. We could find a gazillion of them from all over the world. So, burn that straw man until it's dust; you're wasting your time, Claus, and further making yourself look like a complete fool.

The one thing they all have in common, though? Yup...you guessed it!

Athon

What's wrong with that? Since when did we exclude Muslims from this discussion?

I was asked to demonstrate that these social pressures and expectations are a defining factor in the term 'engagement'. Which I did. Nothing "pathetic" about that.

How do I "represent" skepticism?

 

[athon]

Ok, I'm out. I've debated with children who keep to the topic better. Honestly, it gets to the stage when you discuss things with an idiot that you start to look like a bigger idiot for following their line.

Claus constantly implies engagement is defined by the so-called 'social pressures', 'Islamic practices', or 'hullbaloo', until one asks if this defines it, when he refuses to say this is the case. Dishonesty, lies and evasion comes no clearer.

Excuse me; reality beckons. Some of us have lives.

Athon

(BTW: Anybody who puts their name to a publically accessible source detailing and focussing on skepticism represents skeptical thinking. We all represent skepticism in some small way. You just do a really poor job of it)

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Take a look at the link in post #564. No defining of engagement? No societal pressure?

Khitbah would appear to be the term that was being defined, not engagement.

You clearly haven't read the link: Part of being engaged means they can't have sex.

I've read the link. However it defines Khitbah, not engagement.

 

[Ian Osborne]

You clearly haven't read the link: Part of being engaged means they can't have sex.

But does it define the bloody term? The fact that it needs to be explicitly stated would imply that it doesn't. After all, if 'engagement' is part-defined by not having sex, stating that there must be no sex during engagement would be a redundancy, no?

This is the most stubborn, pig-headed insistence on a hopeless position since Danish Dynamite defended the divorced lawyer who spent 11 years in jail for contempt of court rather than tell the authorities where he hid his wife's money.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Excuse me; reality beckons. Some of us have lives.

Wise advice.

With some people there is hope they will listen to reason, some however seem so determined to avoid admitting being in error that they would rather lie and obfuscate than face up to reality.

 

[kittykatkarma]

Haha, thanks. You have to be quick. Still, the timing was right for us and it all felt right. There's plenty of skepchicks out there somewhere still...I hear.
Athon

But... but... The real question is, are there plenty of skepdudes out there?


Seriously ~ Congratulations athon! I'm happy for you (both).

 

[CFLarsen]

Ok, I'm out. I've debated with children who keep to the topic better. Honestly, it gets to the stage when you discuss things with an idiot that you start to look like a bigger idiot for following their line.

Claus constantly implies engagement is defined by the so-called 'social pressures', 'Islamic practices', or 'hullbaloo', until one asks if this defines it, when he refuses to say this is the case. Dishonesty, lies and evasion comes no clearer.

Excuse me; reality beckons. Some of us have lives.

Maybe looking at the link below will change your mind.

(BTW: Anybody who puts their name to a publically accessible source detailing and focussing on skepticism represents skeptical thinking. We all represent skepticism in some small way. You just do a really poor job of it)

In which case, you have just made it a requirement that one has to agree with you about social customs, if one is to be called a "skeptic".

If one disagrees with you, you call them "woo".

I don't believe anyone made you the arbiter of who can be skeptics.

Khitbah would appear to be the term that was being defined, not engagement.

I've read the link. However it defines Khitbah, not engagement.

No, Khitbah is engagement:

(Question Salam `alaykum. In my school there is a girl; she loves me, and I love her. We have talked about making the khitbah (engagement) but in two years. Can we maintain a relationship without committing haram?
...
(Answer Having stated this, we think that if both are really attracted to each other and they are not driven by their emotions, and their choice is realistic, then it is high time to involve elders in the issue by pressing ahead with the engagement or khitbah, and that khitbah should be followed by concluding the marriage contract.
Source

Please address this.

But does it define the bloody term? The fact that it needs to be explicitly stated would imply that it doesn't. After all, if 'engagement' is part-defined by not having sex, stating that there must be no sex during engagement would be a redundancy, no?

This is the most stubborn, pig-headed insistence on a hopeless position since Danish Dynamite defended the divorced lawyer who spent 11 years in jail for contempt of court rather than tell the authorities where he hid his wife's money.

Look at the above link.

 

[Steven Howard]

That's the key: Values have everything to do with it. If you say "I'm engaged", you get all sorts of social values heaped onto you. "Where's the ring?", "When's the engagement party?", and so on.

You do? Really? I don't remember anyone asking me or my then-fiancee either of those questions. Nor do I recall being aware of any "social values" being "heaped onto" us. We had no engagement party. Neither of us wore an engagement ring. We did not have the banns read in church, nor place an announcement in any newspaper, as we are neither church-goers nor ... um, the sort of people who put announcements in newspapers. And yet, we were engaged to be married.

You cannot escape the values that come with "engagement".

You can't? Ever? It seems to me that we did. Well, I don't think we "escaped" them in the sense that someone escapes from jail, or from an ambush. More in the sense that one "escapes" from an imaginary monster by not agreeing to pretend that it's there in the first place.

 

[Steven Howard]

Take a look at various Islamic marriage and engagement rites.

No sex while being engaged. Not something that the couple decide on their own.

How it that relevant? I'm no religious scholar, but I'm pretty sure Islamic law forbids all pre-marital and extra-marital sex.

 

[CFLarsen]

You do? Really? I don't remember anyone asking me or my then-fiancee either of those questions. Nor do I recall being aware of any "social values" being "heaped onto" us. We had no engagement party. Neither of us wore an engagement ring. We did not have the banns read in church, nor place an announcement in any newspaper, as we are neither church-goers nor ... um, the sort of people who put announcements in newspapers. And yet, we were engaged to be married.



You can't? Ever? It seems to me that we did. Well, I don't think we "escaped" them in the sense that someone escapes from jail, or from an ambush. More in the sense that one "escapes" from an imaginary monster by not agreeing to pretend that it's there in the first place.

Do you have any comments on the issue of Khitbah?

 

[Steven Howard]

Do you have any comments on the issue of Khitbah?

No, I don't. Nor have I anything to say on the price of tea in China, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I'm pretty sure Islamic law forbids all pre-marital and extra-marital sex.

An excellent point. How can the 'no sex' rule partly define engagement when it's already in place before the couple get engaged?