Men were not effected by that rule, of course not these degenerated religious fanatics never limit themselves but try to cut into the life of others
This is one of my complaints about Islam. Countries which practise Islamic law always relegate women to second class citizenship. For example, the testimony of a man is worth three women. In other words, any man can rape a woman and unless she has a man to testify, she’d need three women to testify on her behalf - assuming they witnessed the event.
deleted by creator
Unlike all the other religions, where women are always treated well.
There are currently no Christian nations which treat women like this. No religion or ideology is perfect, but Islam is uniquely hateful towards women.
You’re right in what you say. What is strange here is that although Turkey is not an Islamic country, there is such a rule. Turkey is a secular country.
Three to one is such an absurd parody of justice.
It is so that if the woman becomes pregnant, the recently ex-husband have to pay extra alimony for the child AND the child gets to inherit from the biological father. Regardless, the woman will get alimony until she remarries.
Which is no longer necessary in a time in which paternity tests exist. You are the father of the child your re-married ex-wife just gave birth to, so you have to pay child-support and the child inherits from you. Simple.
deleted by creator
So you think that this makes it fair? And easy for women to have tp prove not to be pregnant? What does this medical examination entail? I bet you that it is no simple blood test for hormones either but a physical examination by a Gynecologist.
deleted by creator
Have you read my original comment?
The man could as easily be financially responsible for a child born after marriage if paternity is proven through a simple test. In that case he would not have to support his ex-wife and she could get maried again. You take away her right to choose and justify that by saying that her ex-husband has to financially support her. Other countries have the same obligations for financial support (if a woman is not able to work to fend for herself) without these prohibitions. Nuanced enough?deleted by creator
No, I think I understood your point, I just don’t agree with it. A woman’s rights are curtailed for a certain amount of time and a man’s are not. This law once had a (debatable) justification, which has been made irrelevant by advances in the medical sciences (DNA paternity tests have been publicly available since the 1980s). To stick to this law after over 40 years, to me, points to another motive.
in a twisted way this was a progressive law at some point. in some other extremely religious countries women aren’t allowed to divorce at all and here it was like a compromise off getting a timeout.
That’s because it’s about control. Another barrier to consider before divorcing in a patriarchal society.
Þe olde baby check…
Old, archaic and misogynistic rule, but at the very least it serves a purpose. Luckily those practices aren’t needed anymore and this rule isn’t necessary with the advent of technologies like ultrasound.
In Italy we have the same law, it’s just another safeguard to prevent excessive succession disputes, I don’t see what’s the problem.
The problem is if such a law only applies to the women
Men cannot get pregnant, what would be the point of having it apply to men too?
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I think this should apply to everyone. It is good practice to give your new relationship some time before jumping in the marriage boat.
It should be a choice you personally make, not a forced decision by the state
Marring is a government form you fill. You can decide whatever
In a world in which marriage didn’t confer any special rights or obligations, I would agree. But marriage is a state-sponsored activity which affords the married all kids of benefits and obligations. Inasmuch, the state does have a say in how it is conducted. Personally, I’m fine with getting the government out of marriages. Everything should be done via legal agreement. No more de facto marriages and alimony. Adults can make informed decisions about their future. They should have the right to make their own choices about what’s fair and reasonable.
Get your head out of the US.
I only superficially agree with this take because of the many cultural implications of marriage. E.G. Kids, housing, money. Decisions that
may carry serious implications and cannot easily be undone should not be rushed into.With that said, marriage is not a prerequisite to any of these potentially problematic aspects of relationships, which makes the entire idea of the restriction-by-association a bit silly. Especially because it is not placed on ‘new’ relationships, merely on the the transferring of relationship statuses in a very particular manner.
I think marriage itself is a bit of an antiquated institution that needs a modern re-work to better fit it to societal needs.
I fully support the current marginal waiting periods for marriage licenses because I feel like this minor barrier does not meaningfully inconvenience the vast majority but may prevent cases of abuse or caprice.
TL:DR - Liberalism and guardrails.
