Is Marriage Still a Useful Institution? Our society is based on different institutions. These institutions were implemented to set rules for members of the society to be able to live together. Marriage is one of these institutions. People get engaged with one another to build a life together, but they rarely ask themselves an important question: What are the concrete impact of Quebec's rules and regulations associated with marriage on the couples that decide to get married? Why do so many people choose to be in a common-law relationship instead? This paper will explain why marriage, as a social institution, should be reformed because of the poor adequacy between the needs of today's families and the rules in place in term of commitment, …show more content…
A religious couple has to be married to have the right to have sex and, of course, children and build a family. Today, most of the population of the West is not religious and, if they are, do not consider marriage a necessary measure to be a couple and having children. In the civil counterpart, mostly in Western countries, it is widely accepted that marriage is a choice and not an obligation. However, some people are still religious and want willfully to get married. In Quebec, celebrants of religious marriage have the obligation to declare the marriage to the civil counterpart. Religious and civil marriages are however based on a different background. For example, catholic marriages are established on the fact that the marriage is eternal and cannot be dissolved. Civil marriage has a process to end it by divorce. Catholic marriage is a union between a man and a woman and the purpose of their union is to build a family. Civil union is a union between two persons, independently of their sex and they do not have any specific purpose other than the fact that the couple wants to be together and want to regulate the terms of their union by a contract that ties them together. The rules of the religious marriage are static and do not change over time, but the civil union evolves with time. It is two different matters and should be treated separately. For example, in Russia, religious marriage has no value in …show more content…
The objectives behind these rules when they were first put in place was to protect household wives, who stayed at home all her life raising the children, and ended up divorced with nothing left. Eventually, the stay-at-home wife was not able to get a well-paid job because she had never been on the employment market during her marriage. Financially, marriage is bound by rules that are very strict and people cannot opt-out easily, especially in Quebec. The family patrimony provisions specify that the belongings that are acquired during the marriage are separated between both spouses in the case of a divorce. It can be the family house, the car, RRSP, and savings. It has to be discussed before the marriage as it has an impact on the finance of both spouses during and after the marriage. Those rules are for every married couple and no one can be
Traditionally, the U.S. family begins with a marriage, cohabitation and finally, children. However, the “typical” family is beginning to evolve very rapidly, just as in France and Quebec. In Quebec, it is more common to find couples living together that aren’t married than to find married couples living together. Surprisingly, only 3 in 10 families in Quebec are married couples with children under 25 living with them. In France, children tend to live with their parents until they’re in their early to mid-twenties. Quebec and the United States are generally evolving together. It is more common in present day to find couples living together that aren’t married, yet may or may not have children. However, in France, couples generally won’t marry until they’re in their thirties. My family is composed of the traditional American family: marriage, creating a home together, creating a family together. Although I was raised in an orthodox household, I was also raised seeing and learning from unorthodox living and parental situations. The role of family in the U.S., Quebec, and France nowadays are all transforming to purposefully cease all structure. Same-sex marriage is now legal in these areas, and this change has definitely produced the question of what is a “typical family” anymore. There is not a typical family anymore, there is only the family one was brought up in and one creates.
In Andrew J. Cherlin’s essay “American Marriage In Transition”, he discusses how marriage in America is evolving from the universal marriage. Cherlin’s definition of the universal marriage in his essay is the man is the breadwinner of the household and the woman is the homemaker. In the 20th century according to Cherlin, the meaning of marriage has been altered such as the changing division of labor, childbearing outside of marriage, cohabitation, gay marriage and the result of long- term cultural and material trends (1154). During the first transition of marriage, Cherlin discusses how in America, Europe, and Canada the only socially accepted way to have sexual relations with a person and to have children is to be married (1154). The second change in marriage occurred in 2000, where the median age of marriage in the United States for men is 27 and women is 25 (1155). Many young adults stayed single during this time and focused on their education and starting their careers. During the second change, the role of law increasingly changed, especially in the role of law in divorce (1155). It is proven in today’s research marriage has a different definition than what it did back in the 1950’s. Today marriage can be defined as getting married to the same gender or getting remarried to someone who already has kids. The roles in a marriage are evolving to be a little more flexible and negotiable. However, women still do a lot of the basic household chores and taking care of the
Last, and most important, is that studies have not shown that more hours spent on homework leads to more knowledge. Time spent on homework does not correlate to better test scores. Some students can spend twice as much time as others and still not do as well. Grades do not necessarily improve with more hours of homework.
Marrying someone is a big decision and a life choice almost everyone must make. It is the most beautiful relationship anyone could ask for. One thing to never do is make this life decision with someone that you are not happy with. In the article “What if Marriage is Bad for Us?” Laurie Essig and Lynn Owens describe the ways marriage affects us negatively. In contrast, I believe that marriage brings positive influence in our lives. If marriage was bad for someone, would it make them unhappy? Will it make someone think different on how they view the person they married? Maybe even cause an emotional state that brings loneliness or sadness?
After reading the article called, “What is Marriage For?” by E.J. Graff I completely agree with the article and I also relate, as well. The reason is I’m part of the LGBTQ community and from the moment I realized I was, I knew when I decided to get married it would be a huge obstacle because I would have to leave the state I was born and raised in which is North Carolina. The reason why I had to leave would be before the law was made in North Carolina same sex marriage wasn’t allowed but only few states allowed it. So, I was truly happy when it was legalized. In addition, in some of the states the only way I could really get married is by civil union which has far less benefits when compared to actual marriage. In the article, it even talks about some of the stories that same sex couples had to deal with the
Instead of traditional marriage (one man, one woman) being the only form of relationship, modern day Canada is populated by many varied types of families. There are single parents, same-sex couples, and those who are divorced and/or separated. Divorce is legally allowed, as is the marriage of those with the same gender identity. To Ignatieff, all that needs to change is the social relationships surrounding families (i.e. the respect between parents and children, and the idea of the Golden Rule –treat others how you yourself want to be treated). For him, the rights revolution was successful (and has completed its journey) in changing the face of family forever, and the laws that exist as a result are both fair and reflective of the needs of the diverse Canadian population (Ignatieff, 2007,
In over half a century, marriage has transformed from being a social requirement to simply being an option in today’s society. What has caused this change? Many institutions in our society have changed drastically along with marriage. Although these institutions have not caused marriage to be optional, they do strongly correlate with the decreased value. The economy, education, religion, and government have all altered since the 1950s. When any institution encounters a change, all other institutions are affected. Family is a major institution in society, and I believe that marriage is an important aspect of this institution. Cohabitation, religion, women in the work world and divorce have all effected the way marriage is viewed today.
Cherlin concludes that although today’s society focuses on the ideas of independence and institutionalized what marriage once met, the symbol for marriage is just as significant as it was before. Marriage is now “something to be achieved through one’s own efforts rather than something to which one routinely accedes” (50). Cherlin’s overall tone is genuine, in search of an answer to explain the social change. It is informative to the fact that people should understand the change that occurred because of the social norm
Although couples are more cautious, it is evident that marriages across Canada have been decreasing due to the severity and responsibilities accompanied with marriage. In the article, Mary Ann Murphy, a sociology professor from UBC, states “‘People are now viewing the coupling decision with more knowledge, confidence, skepticism and care than ever before.’” As the understanding
Religion and the Bible encourage, and perhaps demand marriage from two individuals to create them as one. The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him (Genesis 2:18)". "That at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate (Mathew: 19:4-6)". Why does religion place such an importance on a union of marriage? An answer is suggestively related as to why automobile and health insurance companies provide a discount on their policies when filing married. According to State Farm Auto Insurance, two married individuals are much more likely to accept upon themselves responsibility, maturity, and a longer healthier and more satisfying life. Insurance agencies believe your life will be more structured and meaningful, to provide you with a policy. Living alone or entering and departing unstable casual
Marriage matters. If marriage did not matter, would it even be considered when growing up? The common child at some point thinks about getting married and having children. Our society has gone through monumental shifts throughout its history. A theme that has not changed however, marriage, has survived through it all due to its importance. Our children and our health are two of the most important aspects of life. Marriage will help in both of those categories. Children have better relationships with their parents because of marriage. Watching their parents, they grow up having better relationships themselves. Increased success in school has been noted. Families are more financially stable,
Today, the idea of marriage conjures images of bashful brides beautifully draped in all white, of grandiose flower arrangements climbing towards the ceiling, of romance personified. As an institution in this modern world, marriage represents the apex of romantic love, with an entire industry of magazines, movies, and television shows devoted to perpetuating marriage as an idealized symbol of the ultimate love between two people. Contrarily, as a sociological institution, marriage comes from much more clinical and impersonal origins, contrasting with the passion surrounding modern understandings of the institution. Notably, french anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss theorizes that the institution of marriage emerged from a need to form alliances between groups, with women functioning as the property exchanged so that such alliances could be solidified (Levi-Strauss).
The marriage revolution has been a controversial issue since the dawn of time, and all that are and have been involved with “matrimony” are aware of the issues of the future. There can be no denying that the culture of marriage has changed. This very course is itself a great example of this fact. Much like any other sociological subject of any real concern, there are many “opinions” related to this issue. This paper will attempt to highlight marriage seen as the sociological transformation, marital erosion versus evolution, and why many people fail at marriage and what does it take to be successful in greater detail. This will allow you, the readers, to make up your own minds regarding this extremely multifaceted issue.