Marriage; a familiar concept that has existed since ancient societies, has not always been the same

The marriage of an Athenian woman and man is hard to define exactly because there has not been an exact word translated that is equivalent to the word, “marriage.” The Athenians have words that translate as physical acts for a marriage for the sake of having a child, they also have words that translate as “cohabit” or “live together.” This leads to the conclusion that our traditional connotation of marriage as a bond is not the way it was in Athens. The reasons for a man and a woman to be joined in marriage were nor for love, as we would expect, it would be for profitable and more pragmatic reasons. Usually most beneficial to the male’s in the bride’s life. Since the women were not supposed to be unattended they are assumed to have accepted what was decided for them in terms of a husband. “…A husband normally addresses his wife as “woman.” The Greek word for woman, is

In this time period there were several criteria which decided that a couple was appropriate for one another to get married. Among those things the most important were that the couple should be of similar age, financial circumstances, background and have similar religious beliefs. Also having similar interest was beneficial as well. The husband and wife should like, or love, and respect one and look inner qualities and not just looks. It was always believed that love came after a couple was already married instead of them falling in love which would lead to marriage.

“Marriage and Love”, a short essay by Emma Goldman, gives a wonderful argument regarding love and marriage, in fact, she nails it. Marriage does not equal love or has anything nothing to do with it. Not only that, but the marriage could also easily kill whatever relationship was there prior to the declaration. Marriage is simply a social construct, one that imposes control by religion, tradition, and social opinion (Goldman 304). However, if marriage is such the ball and chain that we all joke about, then why do people get married?

To begin with, marriage is a celebration of love, instead of an obligation. The world has transformed into a more open-minded. In bygone days,

Marriage has often been described as one of the most beautiful and powerful unions one human can form with another. It is the sacred commitment and devotion that two people share in a relationship that makes marriage so appealing since ancient times, up until today. To have and to hold, until death do us part, are the guarantees that two individuals make to one another as they pledge to become one in marriage. It is easy to assume that the guarantee of marriage directly places individuals in an everlasting state of love, affection, and support. However, over the years, marriage has lost its fairy

Marriage has been a heated controversy for the past few years because people often marry for the wrong reasons. Anyone who thinks of an ideal marriage would think of two people loving each other and sharing a personal bond or goals together. Marriage is regularly defined as the legally or formally recognized union of two lovers as partners in a personal relationship. This definition remarks there is an actual connection between two people in marriage, but do people actually consider this when committing to “love” and “support” their partners forever? As research and studies have shown, people ultimately get married for many reasons, except love. This philosophy can be easily applied to the short poem, “Marriage” by Gregory Corso. In this emotional poem, the author argues marriage is more effectively understood or known for culture and convenience rather than through the abstract considerations of love. Here, we can identify people generally decide to marry for the incorrect reasons, for instance the story of the author himself. Corso finds himself confused multiple times, wondering if he should marry to not be lonely, for tradition and for his physical and mental health. He disregards love, a relationship or a connection with his future wife. General ways of convenience like loneliness, health and economic status between cultural stereotypes and religion are usually the true reasons of why people chose to have the commitment of marriage with another person.

In some cultures, people didn’t marry for love and those who did were looked down upon; whereas in modern times, it’s the opposite in many parts of the world. Coontz tells of a culture where,“A Taita man normally marries a love wife only after he has accumulated a few more practical wives” (255). This shows the different perceptions of marriage between the Taita peoples, who let men remarry several times in loveless marriages, and those of certain religions that forbade divorce, as well as today’s society where people often marry for love the first time around. The perceptions differed in that some societies believed in remarrying and marrying without love, while others didn’t. Coontz explains some very different marriage traditions than what Bennett says is normal and right-A man and a woman who fit traditional gender roles- as shown in his essay, “Complementary nature of men and women-and how they refine, support, encourage, and complete one another” (272).

Allison Glazebrook and Kelly Olson’s chapter, “Greek and Roman Marriage" the authors discuss marriage practices in Ancient Greece and Rome and highlight the importance of wives in a family structure and society. They do so by looking at what was required for a legitimate marriage over the course of these civilizations’ history. In both cultures, Glazebrook and Olson especially look at how women and girls’ bodies were policed and defined. From an early age, girls were taught that their role in life would be remain sexually available to their husbands and produce heirs. From a modern perspective, girls in ancient civilizations married extremely young. However, this chapter address the “scientific” justification society gave to promote this practice

The Uncommon Idea of Love In “The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love” by Stephanie Coontz, a college professor, author, and historian on the subject of marriage, the history of marriage and the idea of love was discussed. Coontz covered marriage from many times periods and many countries, such as Greece, France, and Chinese. She also touched on the idea of love and marrying because of it. Her main idea was, “But only rarely in history has love been seen as the main reason for getting married” (4).

Marriage is undeniably effective for some things such as procreation and rearing those produced children.Ê Biologically, all creatures need heterosexual union of some kind to continue their species, but this union need not be a required social construct.Ê In ancient and classical Greece, as well as in much of the world today, marriage is a social expectation.Ê Elders encourage young men to choose their even younger wives at the expected time and to create a respectable typical household.Ê But is marriage actually necessary or even what people desire?Ê Hellenic marriage seems to be constructed in such a way as to leave many Greeks unsatisfied and discontent.Ê Why else

Varied Views on Love and Marriage Hanwen Wang The Christian notion of gender relations has a profound influence on Christian Europe. It can be best demonstrated by people’s views on love and marriage during different periods of time. Both Gregory and Marie have their own views on love and marriage that represents the cultural background in their societies. Although the views on love and marriage in The History of the Franks and Lais are both derived from The Bible, they are different among each other mainly in the acceptance of polygamy.

Marriage was not a decision made by the young women, but by her father, divorce was a very difficult task for women, and the wedding day was a day of celebration and tradition. In conclusion, ancient women from Athens and all over the world, has shaped the minds of modern people into believing that men are much stronger, meaningful, and important than

Their families and relatives arranged it for them. They considered it foolish to marry for love. During the performance of the wedding ceremony, they would get married by a father, referring to Romeo and Juliet. If the children had parental permission, the boys could get married at 14 and the girls at 12, but it was more common for the boys to get married at 21. When the weddings began, the couples were meeting for the first time.

The church got involved in regulating marriage much later on, as its influence began to increase in Western Europe. It wasn’t until 1215 that the Church formally put a claim on marriage and hashed out rules about what made children legitimate.

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).