Almost all people think that getting married the one who he or she loves is natural. But there are some situations when someone cannot get married to him or her because it is socially unacceptable. The definition of marriage for different people means different things. Marriage has some forms, but nowadays the same sex marriage is the most discussed topic. So in this essay I’m going to compare the traditional marriage and the same sex marriage.
On the other hand, there are couples who have no intention of getting married, but enjoy the benefits of living together. There are some people who argue that cohabiting is not the best thing to do and that it will lead to an unhealthy relationship. I think that cohabiting can be very beneficial. I believe that while cohabiting with your partner, you can find out if your partner is truly the right person for you. While living together you will be able to spend a lot more time together.
Furthermore, this would lead to a lot of people expecting more from relationships after getting divorced, as they wouldn't want to fall victim to what cause their last marriage to end again. This is part of the high expectations people now expect from relationships. Young people may have experienced divorce or bad relationships in their life, so they do not want to fall into it themselves, making them wary of marriage. Sue Sharpe's study in the early 1970s showed that young girl's main concerns were 'love, marriage, husbands, children, jobs' in that order. When she then returned in the 90s she found that the list had flipped, with jobs and careers being in first place.
Finally, Coontz brought forth if someone is not marrying for love but just for the status then what is the point of getting married. I do agree with her about this and also, the point about the media blowing the idea of happily ever after out of proportion by just believing that only true love will hold a marriage together that is false. True love can bring people together but would not keep them together, this is something that marriages cannot solely rely on it takes hard work and dedication to keep a marriage
The signing of the ketubah, the marriage contract, is an integral part of the Jewish marriage ceremony. The ketubah outlines the responsibilities of the Chatan during the marriage, such as providing for his wife and being attentive to her emotional needs. It shows that marriage is more than simply a physical and spiritual union; it is also a moral and legal commitment, therefore increasing its significance to individual Jewish adherents. It is read aloud before being signed and is witnessed by the people at the ceremony. Deutronomy 22:13 says that “To marry a wife by means of ketubah and keddushin” will bring fulfilment.
Male and females complement each other anatomically, and as Ryan T. Anderson elaborated, the “biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman,” (Anderson, 2013). If desired, traditional marriages support reproduction of families, children, and communities, whereas same sex marriages are not able to produce offspring for future generations. Without traditional marriages, fundamental building blocks of human civilization and community networks and children would be lost forever. Social and political liberal activists are putting forth arguments to change traditional marriage laws. As same sex marriages are certainly capable of providing loving relationships and family unity.
Assess the argument that state policy has largely failed to protect the institution of the family I think that state policy although appears to benefit people with families and their families; it is not always the case. An example of how state policy does not protect the institution is the Divorce Law Act. This act allows for a quicker, cheaper way of getting a divorce and allows divorce to be obtained much easier. This does not protect the institution of family because before this act came into place most people would try to work out the problems within their marriage because divorce was a long and expensive process. However, with the new act and its simplicity people are no longer trying to fix their marriages and are just getting divorced which leads to the breakdowns of many family units.
Neff also addresses the fact that there are people who are against people moving in together before marriage. She states that it’s a personal decision people make because living together can have lasting positive effects that can later solidify a marriage. The author also states while living together may be valuable for some relationships, it can also be the source of an unhappy ending for others. Even though people love each other and spend a lot of time together, the question still remains, “Can you live together?” I agree with the author’s views on living together before marriage because I am currently sharing a space with my boyfriend. Living together before marriage helps a couple establish roles and responsibilities in the household.
He reiterates, however, that his reasons are based on merit. He feels Sonya’s high level of enthusiasm may be a detriment to her work performance because customers may be turned off by it. He also suggests that Jacqueline would be better choice because she is married. Paul disagrees but, in the end, Robert states that they will go with Jacqueline and see how it works out. The two generate an interesting debate; however they might lose their credibility because Robert brought the fact that Jacqueline was married which is not job related and could be discriminatory to unmarried applicant while Paul he continually refer about Sonya’s enthusiasm and could be the selling point but this is not also offer any substantial reasons for her preference.
If paid family leave would become more available, fathers would be able to stay home and bond with their infant during that very important time in their lives. Also, with both parents being home, there can be more household division of labor and less conflict. Unfortunately men do not take family leave for fear of loss of income. When men take time off to care for family members, their long term earnings suffer-just as womens do. If paid family leave is extended to both partners it would help reduce gender differences.