In her essay “The Radical idea of Marrying for Love,” Stephanie Coontz expresses her views on the evolution of marriage from its former survival and connection based purpose, to its now personal and emotional fulfillment motives. Coontz explains that in the past “it was inconceivable that people would choose their mates on the basis of something as fragile and irrational as love.” For most of history marriage was a mere tool for survival and political gain. Coontz provides several examples of such marriages motives but goes on to explain that in recent years, the focus has changed to a more personal motive. This shift of motives in marriage is primarily seen in Western societies and can be tied to the media driven idea of a “happily ever after” seen, heard, and advocated in a plethora of ways throughout Western societies. Today, marriage is based on the idea of love.
Marriage was more about picking the right in-laws than picking the right partner to love and live with. The point to marriage was to gain advantageous marriage connections with some value and avoid paying debts to others. Marriage became the main way that the upper classes consolidated wealth, forged military coalitions, finalized peace treaties, and gained claims to social status or political authority. Personally for myself I could never live in the twentieth century. I would have been a disgrace to my family and probably would have been disowned.
She was dean on about the fact that people do not live happily ever after. Graham also claimed that love could be nothing more than a biological experience, a rush of different chemicals, which make people exhibit their behavior. Being that many people believe that love is something that is totally out of their control, Graham’s belief seems to hold some truth. In “The Future of Love,” Barbara Graham discusses the union of love and marriage, and how it they fail to coexist. Graham claims that people are drawn to believe that love and marriage should naturally go together, but she didn’t consider the fact that people get together solely based on the physical aspects of things.
The Mongols had foreign administrators in China because they did not trust any Chinese person to be left in charge therefore foreign people were used. While in the Middle East the Mongols felt that leaving the Persians to have some charge would be the best for the people and result in benefits. Along with similar and different political effects of Mongol rule, there were similar and different economic effects of Mongol rule on China and the Middle East. The economic effects of Mongol rule on China and the Middle East were similar in that both were forced to give up money. In
He preferred a small scale of military. However, since today the position and the possession of a good leader are always desired by many covetous men, I suppose that a smart leader today should concern war and the preparation thereof, as Machiavelli advised. Through war, he can consolidate his power, and protect his people as well as his territory. Last year, Chinese government declared to take back one of two Vietnamese famous islands, called Hoang Sa, which belonged to Vietnam for many centuries. Being afraid of inferior if a fight really happened, the Vietnam Communist Government hopelessly gave its island up to China.
The practice of polygamy distorts the meaning of marriage. Goodman says that "defenders argue that polygamous marriages are freely entered, freely left, well protected by law or custom" (pg 90). I believe this type of marriage is wrong for the women involved and it breaks down the institution of marriage. The women are denied the intended bond they are to have with a husband. Not being able to have this bond disables her trust and intimacy with her husband, these are meant to strengthen a relationship and marriage.
Sometimes I wonder what all the hate against gay marriage is all about. Why is it such a big deal? I agree with Bishop Malone and his opinion about marriage being the foundation for a family, but I disagree with his stance that marriage should be between a man and a woman only. This comes from a very idealistic view on how life should be. Therefore, I believe that homosexual unions should be legal because they can provide the same amount of love, care, education, as well as create equally productive, creative, upright, and responsible citizens as any heterosexual
Marriage in China before the evolution is a lot different than the marriage we think of. Traditional marriage in China is arranged between two families and does not involve love. The marriage is based on family alliance, power, money and assurance. The status and role of the woman was based on her husband’s status, but generally a woman’s job was to birth a son to carry on the family name. Thoughts on marriage changed when the communist government took over.
By how they chose to live and raise their families not only lead to a continuing cycle but also to a possible extinction of a major role in their society. As far back as the first dynasty that was established in China, specific roles and expectations were set for the people. Males were to follow a certain role and females were to follow a completely different role. Each party not only had to follow these roles within the household, but they were also expected to respect the roles outside of the house as well. Marriages were arranged in ancient China but they were also carefully considered.
Getting married is like a fairy tale dream. People develop the idea that finding a partner is one of the most important tasks in life; however, choosing the right person is one of the hardest tasks to accomplish. Although, there are some people that do not think that getting married is necessary to have a success in life. I have my own experience with both sides. Long time ago I thought that staying single for the rest of my life was the best choice for me.