What Makes A Marriage A Strong Foundation?

At this time, marriage was still somewhat based on the economic standing of one’s partner. Marriage was viewed by some as “a means of increasing one’s credit and one’s fortune and of insuring one’s success in this world” (Zeldin 288). However, marrying for love became much more important. Prior to the 1800s, couples were typically much farther apart in age, with the husband being much older than the wife. However, after the increase in marriages of love, couples were nearly the same age. Love and attraction eventually became the primary

Most of the time, if not all, the decisions we make concerning marriage are based on the concept of “romantic love”. Most young people tend to believe the only

Mary Anne Fitzpatrick is the developer of the three original types of marriage. The three types include; Traditional marriage, Independent marriage, and Separate Marriage. When she was studying, she noticed that not every couple was the same, and that age played a factor in it as well when it came to categorizing couples in what type of marriage they are. “Couples can be differentiated on the basis of their “independence,” the extent to which they share their feelings with one another. Some couples are highly interdependent, depending on their partners for comfort, expressions of love, and fun. Other couples are more reserved and do not depend on their partners for emotional sharing and support,”(345). This shows Fitzpatrick’s theory of different types of marriage is true and each couple is different form another and that they should be put into different categories and not just one.

Dating back to the early 1900’s and all the way through to the present, romantic relationships have been viewed differently. From strict unwritten dating regulations to not having regulations at all, recent generations have become more liberated in making their own decisions. The progressing times have made us become a more accepting society and have caused a decrease in the strong practice of religion and class. Even though differences such as religion and class in relationships were more than an issue they were not always a complete deterrence.

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.

Back in the eighteenth century, marriage was seen as a business contract without considering love as the main reason for any relationship. According to Ingrid H. Tague, an assistant

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.

The change on the contemporary wedding, from what the society has been seeing in the 21st century, is phenomenal. People approach marriage very differently nowadays. Individuals still look for their “would-be” spouses. However, it's not for love or companionship purposes but convenience. In fact, Dr. Strohschein is quoted saying in the talk show says that marriage evolved to a "capstone" to an individual’s life and no longer a cornerstone of life as it used to be (Woodford, Luke, Grogan-Kaylor, Fredriksen-Goldsen, & Gutierrez, 2012). This paper explores Strohschein’s views in the light of sociological concepts and theoretical paradigm.

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

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

From Shakespearean time to present day, the dating and marrying of certain people has been put in the hands of teenagers. In the 14 to 1500’s parents always had a say in who their son or daughter was to marry. Things today aren’t like that, but in some cases parents don’t allow their children to date certain people. Some parents restrict who their teens date, and others want to allow their children freedom and to have their own independence in preparation for becoming an adult. Different parenting styles have a major impact on their teen’s future. Parent’s today should have the right to prohibit who their children date.

Love, sex and relationships. These three aspects of life are in every culture. Although they are present in every culture, the characteristics of these three are portrayed differently between each and every society. Various cultures are influenced by the media, social norms, and traditions. The media portrays sex as if everyone is “doing it” all the time. This not only includes people who are married, but single people as well. Social norms, however, seem to look down upon people constantly having sex. Having sex constantly with many partners is not respected or accepted. And in tradition, it depends greatly from culture to culture. For the Muslim culture, wives are treated like property, where in America, marriage is the equal joining of two partners. To examine the differences between each culture/country in the world, we must dive into each culture’s beliefs and values amongst sexuality, relationships, marriage and love. The cultures focused on in this paper are Asian, European and American cultures.

There were two heavy changes, as explained by Coontz, that happened in society that allowed the marriage institution to flower the “love match” model. First change: young adults and teenagers face financial changes which allowed them to marry and whichever age the felt content to marry at. Second change: philosophical and political views were changed entirely in this area (Coontz 385). This created a whole new concept of what society was aiming for. People now aim for happiness, love, and at times, even intimacy. The “Love Match” marriage started off as an amazing break through to what society should be like. However, this whole new concept was still young. At the time, it seemed like a great idea. In fact, at this time, blissfully, is seems like an amazing idea. However, the results according to our time are not the same results that the people from the Western Europe had in mind.

Marriage is the socially recognized union of two or more people. Selecting a marriage partner is very much a culturally defined process. The rules governing selection vary widely from society to society and are more often complex. How would you go about selecting a mate? Where would you begin? What criteria would you use? When we look around the world to see how other societies deal with these questions, it is clear that the ways of selecting a mate or a marriage partner has been changed from generation to generation.

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.