Saturday Save - The Best For Last #2
Really?
I posted this in my other blog and I'm revising the words I used or not. Just a little background from me, I grew up with both mother and father. They are very strict about people we date. My father side of the family has a history of adultery with in laws. They brought us up never to look at our cousins in any sexual way. When I said cousins, everyone that has even 1 percent blood in them.
We are not allowed to marry in the same family. No brother in law's brother, no sister in law's sister. Not even if your sister's wife died or brother's died you are not allowed to step in and marry your brother in law's or sister in law's. They are already part of the family and will always be part of the family even if they marry again who is not related to us. The family will help bring up the kids and discipline them because they are a member of the family.
DH side of this argument is, it is ok to marry your ex-sister in law (ex meaning when your siblings die they are not part of your family anymore). Taking the responsibility of your dead brother (if you are a man) or your dead sister (if you are a woman) goes to the one who is not married and unattached. My argument with this is, the member of the family are still responsible because the widow is still a family and will always be. Responsibility does not mean you need to sleep with the widow and maybe have kids with them, definitely not. Are we running out of none relatives in this world and you need to be sexual with your own family?
If the widow had kids with the first marriage, then had more with the next who is the member of the same family now the kids will have: sisters/brothers, cousins/sisters/brothers, uncle/father, oh hear this one, father/grandfather, daughter in law/wife and now my own kids will have smaller brothers or sisters from their sister in law now step mother. Wow, thinking all that makes my head hurts. The discipline and responsibility part that DH is arguing about, I don't get and even others arguments that agree with him.
I have 5 boys in my house including DH. If I die and my oldest son's die with me, what is he going to do? Step in as a father and grandfather or maybe ask my second son to marry the woman. That is sick and I hope I don't die before DH because there is no way in my life I will let this happen. Call me selfish, non conservative, broad minded or does not care about keeping the family together, I don't care. They are a family member, what we eat is what they will eat and they will be living in my house until they are able to afford for themselves or re-marry outside the family. We will be helping each other as family but not helping in sexual way.
Ok, let me hear your point, I will not agree with it but give it a shot anyway. I even called a friend (he he he you know who are, and I am thankful for talking to me) of mine from down south to hear her side on this. She is also a Filipina and hoping we have the same belief, however she can see the point in both sides. I tried calling an American friend but I think she was working and no one answered the phone. I even tried my sister in law but I think she was busy herself because she is getting married next Saturday.
Give me your sides, I would like to know if I'm nuts, selfish, and trying to break the family apart. Please no excuse about modern society/world we have or keeping the wealth in the family (ok the wealth reason is selfish). What do you believe?
Good Sunday Morning! Nedekcir, and Thank You once again for being with us on Saturday Saved. :)
Though I am regarded as a liberal minded person by most, this is one issue where I believe you are being positively and absolutely correct in your values. And of course I salute your beloved Dad for having made it mandatory.
I do not think this has anything to do with being puritanical or because at that time there was no television sets and therefore the only pleasureable preoccupation was sexual engagement of any kind. Even today with the television set and more, sex has become increasingly heightened.
This is just plain common sense, the family values and the avoidance of consequences of what follows in the decades ahead has to be upheld.
The impact is not with the immediate marriage but with the offspring. History has actual cases of two persons with blood affinity who fell in love and married without knowing it because they were from different parts of the country and much of their family origins was lost with time and or the existence of their elders who knew.
Apart from widows and widowers, it is also the same thing with divorcees who remarry and remarry. The very foundations of family relationship eventually becomes so messed up. Who's who and what is the relation status amongst the offsprings would need an anthropologist to unravel.
Understandably, different cultures would have their own values and deal with this matter differently from how you and I appreciate it, old fashioned countryside thinking or not.
For several years I worked to complete the family Geneaology as far back as 9 generations. I saw exactly the same thing you mentioned, here and there, as the family tree branched out from the year 1700. And I was stumped.
What more? I also found out that there are two other families in my country who bear my family surname and I can't figure out where these people originated.
I could go on and on.....
Have a great weekend Nedekcir!
Post a Comment