The Radical Idea Of Marrying For Love

In “What’s Love Got to Do with It?” Anjula Razdan determines the benefits and disadvantages of both arranged and self-determined marriages. She begins with discussing how arranged marriages were common in many cultures up until the last century and were typically used for political or materialistic gain rather than to affirm the love between two individuals. Razdan questions if society’s transition to marriages based on passion has been beneficial considering both divorce and single adulthood rates increase with every passing year. She uses arguements from Robert Epstein, an editor for Psychology Today and divorced father, to convey the message that arranged marriages “result in an enduring love because they promote compatibility…ahead of

Marriage is described as two people as partners in a personal relationship. There are two typical ideas of marriage that we know today. The first one that comes to mind is the one we all know, based on love, but there is another one that some may not even know of and its arranged marriages. Arranged marriage is not typically in our culture we know but in different cultures arranged marriages are their normal marriage. Throughout this essay, I will discuss the importance of realizing cultural diversity and how we apply the perspectives we gain from cross-cultural comparison to our own experience using central concepts about marriage to compare and contrast marriage in several cultures.

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

“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?

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.

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 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).

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

Established with Adam and Eve, still surviving, marriage is the oldest institution known. Often the climax of most romantic movies and stories, whether it may be ‘Pride and Prejudice’ or ‘Dil Wale Dulhaniya Ley Jaein Gey’, marriage has a universal appeal. It continues to be the most intimate social network, providing the strongest and most frequent opportunity for social and emotional support. Though, over the years, marriage appears to be tarnished with high divorce rates, discontentment and infidelity, it is still a principal source of happiness in the lives of respective partners. Although marriage is perceived as a deeply flawed institution serving more the needs of the society than those of the individuals, nevertheless, marriage is

What causes people to contemplate marriage? Many would like to believe the answer is love, but that is not always the case. People who think of an ideal marriage would think of two people loving each other and sharing a personal bond or goals together. Marriage is usually defined as the legally or formally recognized union of two lovers as partners in a personal relationship. This suggests 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 the incorrect reasons, in which love is not included or even a part of. 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. 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. The author ponders the decision weighing the options. He highlights which ones are the right and which ones are the incorrect reasons, according to his opinion. General ways of convenience like coping with loneliness, health and economic status, and navigating cultural stereotypes and religion are often the true

Marriage is a union that has been around for as long as humans have walked the earth. The human race depends upon the union of its members, and as such, the subject of marriage has been an issue that receives more intense scrutiny and attention than many would likely believe. In today's day and age, with humanity continuing to move in a modern direction, many argue that marriage is a union that should be entered into freely and should be based exclusively on the love between two people. However, I argue that arranged marriage, which has taken place throughout the ages and throughout the world, is a union that offers its observers a marriage based in support, longevity and love, and is an institution that should not be frowned upon.

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).