The Connection Between Love And Marriage

People believe that marriage is easy and is the key to love and happiness, but in reality marriage is harder than it looks. Everyone marries for different reasons, for good or for bad. People today don’t understand the meaning of marriage; it is more than just money and appearance. Seeing today’s world of marriage is being influenced by media shows like Jerry Springer, Judge Judy, and Murray makes you realize how society today identifies marriage different. Couples who live unmarried will be happier and have more choices than those that are married in agreement with Catherine Newman’s essay called I Do. Not.: Why I Won’t Marry in the book “Acting Out Culture: Reading and Writing “, by: James S. Miller. Catherine Newman is a writer and an author

Love is rarely the motivating reason for marriage, and Stephanie Coontz’s article, “The Radical Idea of Marrying for Love,” discusses this. Coontz brings forth a lot of information and many examples to inform the reader of how the western idea of marriage isn’t really as common as we believe that it is. She starts her article with a quote from George Bernard Shaw, who says that people who marry for love are, “under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions…” Many of the cultures that Coontz goes onto talk about later in the article share this viewpoint. The author writes about the history of marriage and touches on societies that have obscure views of it now. She does a great job of organizing the information into a timeline starting with marriage in the ancient times, love in African tribes, adultery throughout history, monogamy, and marriage now in Western society. Most of Western society bases getting married on the idea of “love until death.” Coontz argues that this Western invention is and has often been seen as radical.

Modern, contemporary society’s mindset on marriage has shifted considerably over the years. Some research has noted the increase in early sexual experiences, greater acceptance of cohabitation and the increase in narcissistic tendencies, are complicating and muddying the ideals of what marriage means to people today. Research done on this subject resulted in several studies that found that spouses who did not believe that marriage would last forever, were less likely to commit to the relationship financially and were more likely to have extramarital affairs.

     In years past, the American Dream for most young girls’ is to grow up and be married to Prince Charming and to “Live Happily Ever After!” Although this may be expected - it is rarely fulfilled. Marriage is the legal and binding union between a man and woman. Yet when couples marry, they vow to stay by their partner’s side ‘till death do us part.’ Currently that vow seems to have little or no value in today’s society. The current statistics for survival of marriage are quite grim. The divorce rate in the United States is somewhere between 50 percent and a startling 67 percent. (KSL News) One contributing factor the growing epidemic of divorce is the parting of different family

In “For better, for worse: Marriage means something different now,” Stephanie Coontz reveals the worldwide changes in people’s attitudes and behaviors towards marriage. According to Coontz, education and the social norms are the reasons why marriage has become nonessential. Being single and going through a divorce are more acceptable now. The motivations of marriage have turned from economic dependence into personal willingness. In fact, Coontz’s words make me wonder the true meaning of marriage. Even though the meaning has changed over times, I believed that I still hope to get married.

Marriage has been constantly changing over the past centuries. Currently, trends in marriage have adopted a new way of getting married through splitting responsibilities and work, resulting in social freedom for individuals. "The Myth of Co-Parenting,” by Hope Edelman demonstrates the difficulties of taking all the responsibilities while in “ My Problem with Her Anger,” explains the needs of having a better understanding of each other. Due to marriage changing over the last centuries, marriage couples desire individuals’ expectations and freedom to be met in marriage.

The definition of American family is based on the idea that a legally married couple shares a household, which has been considered as a male that provides the income and a female who is responsible for taking care of the husband, household and children. Even though, Maggie Gallagher in her essay the benefits of marriage in “Why marriage is good for you,” states that she is trying to promote the return to more traditional view of marriage within the society. However, there is a controversy that American family is experiencing changes in every aspect, being on decline as a consequence of three factors. First, more babies are born in extramarital relations, second, individualism of men and women including same sex couples, and third, the high

Stephanie Coontz is a sociologist who is interested in marriage and the change in its structure over the time-span as love became a main proponent of the relationship involved in marriages. In her article, “What 's Love Got to Do With It,” Coontz argues that the more love becomes a part of the equation the less stable the institution of marriage becomes. Marriage at one point was a social contract that bound two families together to increase their property and wealth as well as ally connections. Each party entered into the contract knowing their roles and if one partner failed to meet the expectations, they were still contractually obligated to one another and were not allowed to divorce. As love became part of the equation, each partner was less sure of their obligations and often chose to end their marriages if at all possible.

Marriage has always been a convoluted subject to every era of time, especially when wealth is brought into the equation of it. During the Romantic Era, the state of marriage illustrated women’s continued inequality in society. For instance, women lacked legal equality once they entered marriage due to coverture, which is the condition of a woman during her married life, when she is under the law of being the authority of and protection of her husband. This basically entails that once a woman marries, she is property of her husband. In later decades, women would make great strides to gain legal recognition. However, during the late eighteenth century, Romantic feminists voiced more practical concerns rather than that of law (Feldman 280). Before the nation could acknowledge women as equals, husbands must first accept their wives as true partners in marriage. This was considered not only logical, but practical. Feminists located one of the sources of inequality within women’s own behavior and the methods they employed to gain husbands. Women had been taught to use beauty and love to attract husbands, but beauty and love are only temporary states. These states do not establish a solid foundation for a lasting marriage. As illustrated in Jane Austen’s novel Emma, a successful marriage is founded upon the match between two personalities, and not upon looks.

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.

Marriage a long-standing fundamental to functional society. Marriage is a perspective of what used to be socially the beginning of a nuclear family. A nuclear family consisting of a father, mother, and children. In the twentieth century it was considered proper in society to be married before having children. However, this is no longer the case in modern United States. What aspects are there that make our generation susceptible to cohabitation instead of marriage?

The stark divide between love and marriage shown right the way through cannot be comprehended fully by the twenty-first century reader: in today’s society marriage and love are mutually exclusive - you very rarely get one

The simplest and most basic foundation of a sociological civilization or group begins at the core center of sociology; which is marriage and the inner-fabric creation of a family. It is said that matches are made in heaven, however finding and defining your “soul mate” differs from one social group to the next. The social institution of marriage changes and adapts consistently through time, religious practice, and national beliefs. Many people believe they lead happy and satisfying lives without a marital partner, as others highly value and desire a life-long marital partner as the pinnacle achievement of their life.

Kipnis founds her argument on the equation of love to expressions of love. She contends that “love may or may not be a universal emotion, but clearly the “social forms” it takes are infinitely malleable” (663). According to her argument, love exists as social forms, although she seems to file all concepts discussed in her essay under this general term. Over the course of her polemic, she examines love through institutions like marriage and monogamy, actions like sex and

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).