Divorce Isn't A Solution HERE! - Page 5

Originally posted by: BeyondHorizon

I do agree with most of your points Anushka. But one thing I would beg to differ is that divorce isn't necessarily regressive. Relationships that bind two people together in a loveless relation that lacks trust, respect and subjects one of the partners to endless abuse is regressive. Divorce may not be a part of religion but it was brought in force in Hindu Marriage Act. For those suffering abuse all their life, subjected to humiliation it is liberating. So I am not personally against it.

However in Ronakshi case, divorce is not a solution. So agree there. Coz we have two people who are capable of respecting and loving each other. Situations are messed up. I guess viewers are just pissed off with Sonakshi being tortured endlessly. They are frustrated. But in the end if makers show Rohit realise the truth then the very same viewers will start shipping Ronakshi and will hope they will sort out their differences 😊

That's what we r saying .don't make divorce a joke like in itv ..just for silly reasons divorce concept used in itv

Originally posted by: VARUNI2014

See there is no concept in sanathaba Dharma which u should detest .it gave max freedom to women unlike islam Christianity or Judaism

Perhaps u r talking about Manu who wrote all sxhit in 700 a.d .that MAnu is fake MAnu..it's proved by some .

After Islam started making roots in a destructive way some Hindu scholars started regressive concepts in sanathana Dharma to protect women from islamic Invaders

Sanathana Dharma has no regressive practises at all .there was nothing like child marriage ..there was no sati ..burning of women .women were educated

There was option to remain single for both women and men through out their life .

See Mahabharata ..no one had child marriage .no woman forcibly married .woman had choice in marriage .every woman was educated ..queen had their say in running the state along with king .

There was widow remarriage too .vichitra veerya wives had option to go back to their kingdom and marry

That's why satyavathi begged them to stay ..she did not order them

Even satyavathi had option to marry again .she was offered marriage by some king .but she refused .

There was equality .men and women both had polygamy practise ..unlike Islam ..which was partial .

Sanatana Dharma I have seen closely and I know for a matter of fact that it doesn't give every woman equality. Does it allow you to enter temples during menstruation? A BIG NO. Like I said before , don't mix religion with any thing else.

You don't get to decide which is true and honest and fake about religion. That's for the individual to decide and have their own opinions about it. You really believe that Mahabharat is the standard for defending religion and women empowerment. It's not.

You can call me fake Hindu for all I care. Regarding the priest has to sign that he performed the marriage. But people get married in court too. So they are not Hindu or they don't have a legal standing in the conventional marriage laws.

You are getting confused. My main point about this post was, don't mix religion and divorce. People like you bring religion into everything. Tomorrow you might say that a person is not Patriotic because we are not devout Hindu.

PS- I just realized there is no point in talking to someone who does not understand the other side of the story.

Originally posted by: -Mayu-

Sanatana Dharma I have seen closely and I know for a matter of fact that it doesn't give every woman equality. Does it allow you to enter temples during menstruation? A BIG NO. Like I said before , don't mix religion with any thing else.

You don't get to decide which is true and honest and fake about religion. That's for the individual to decide and have their own opinions about it. You really believe that Mahabharat is the standard for defending religion and women empowerment. It's not.

You can call me fake Hindu for all I care. Regarding the priest has to sign that he performed the marriage. But people get married in court too. So they are not Hindu or they don't have a legal standing in the conventional marriage laws.

You are getting confused. My main point about this post was, don't mix religion and divorce. People like you bring religion into everything. Tomorrow you might say that a person is not Patriotic because we are not devout Hindu.

PS- I just realized there is no point in talking to someone who does not understand the other side of the story.

Agree with you absolutely on the first point. Religion should be a personal choice and whether it should be or not is something that's been debated for more time than we can count.

Pls don't bring religion into divorce because both are personal choices and in divorce it's a couple choice.

Today if u ask me I would say divorce is wrong but when I am or someone close to me faced with the reality of divorce my view may be totally different. With no absolution can we say anything is wrong/right??

There was a reason divorce was brought into judicial system that to protect both men/women in situation where the couple can't work out the issues that forced them to look at the divorce option..

P.S. of the topic...What happend to freedom of expression. Why are we ready to pass judgment for a certain situation that are colored with our own ideologies. Every coin has two sides to it. Not saying we have to agree with the other side but they have the right to tell their story.

Let's give the makers their freedom to tell their story the way they want to. It's their right.. And it's our right to see it not to see it.

Originally posted by: -Mayu-

Sanatana Dharma I have seen closely and I know for a matter of fact that it doesn't give every woman equality. Does it allow you to enter temples during menstruation? A BIG NO. Like I said before , don't mix religion with any thing else.

You don't get to decide which is true and honest and fake about religion. That's for the individual to decide and have their own opinions about it. You really believe that Mahabharat is the standard for defending religion and women empowerment. It's not.

You can call me fake Hindu for all I care. Regarding the priest has to sign that he performed the marriage. But people get married in court too. So they are not Hindu or they don't have a legal standing in the conventional marriage laws.

You are getting confused. My main point about this post was, don't mix religion and divorce. People like you bring religion into everything. Tomorrow you might say that a person is not Patriotic because we are not devout Hindu.

PS- I just realized there is no point in talking to someone who does not understand the other side of the story.

Entering temples during Menstruation is not done for scentific purposes

Our temples r not equivalent to churches

We do prana prathista in temples.that means certain energy flows

That energy might effect the fertility of women when entered during Menstruation

That's why they don't allow.

There r restrictions for men too .certain YAgAS can't be done without wife present next to them .think about it

I referred Mahabharata bcos at that time sanathana Dharma existed

Yes women freedom was there in Mahabharata

Can u show me the same in abrahamic religions

Abrhamic religions say Adam not equal to Eve and talk about woman as sin so regressive

I don't find anything like that in mahabharatha

U r saying don't mix religion with divorce .for u r kind info uniform civil code does not exist in India like USA

Why is sharia followed in Muslims in marriage divorce in India is not sharia connected to religion

In India religion and marriage are interconnected though Hindu marriage act is different from sanathana Dharma