Marriage-Happily Every After?

Marriage-Happily Ever After?

The knowledge of marriage between a man and a wife has been evident since Adam and Eve. (Genesis 2:23)  Marriage has been the foundation of family structure.  Two people; a man and a woman who marry, establish a life together, are faithful to each other, have children together, eventually grandchildren, and live happily ever after until death do them part. 

 Over the past hundred years, society’s views on marriage have changed.  In the 1920’s dating became popular, making people wonder if marriage was going to go way-side.  In the 1950’s post war time, marriage was expected.  Family values were stronger than ever. Along with the ring came one’s right to spousal benefits- “What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is yours”, health care decisions, power of attorney, marriage acquired assests, and much more. If you chose to remain single during this time you were viewed as if there were something wrong with you.  In the 1970’s women decided that they were going to have equal rights and were self-sufficient. Divorce rates began to sky rocket for the first time. Now in the 2000’s everyone focuses on love. Marriage for the sake of having a family structure is no longer the focal point.  Marriage as a union has changed from being a union between a man and woman to encompass gays and lesbians.  Seven U.S. states (mostly in the N.E. with the exception of D.C., and Iowa) now view gay marriage as a legal marriage.

  www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history

 

I have included a couple interesting links on marriage as an institution.

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2032116,00

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/116400

7 thoughts on “Marriage-Happily Every After?

  1. As I was reading the Time article that was linked in, one thing that caught my attention was the research showing that the number of marriages in which the wife is either taller or older than the husband has been increasing. What is interesting about this research is that it was so easy to conduct objectively, being that both height and age are simple measurable data, and yet the trend still shows a change in our collective thinking.

  2. I also found it interesting that couples are increasingly similar in their educational and socioeconomic background. Earlier, it was more common that the husband had more education than the wife — which makes sense, given that fewer women participated in higher education. Today, couples tend to be more equal in all respects. As I think of it, my grandparents’ marriage is a good illustration of how couples were less similar back in the past.

  3. I found it interesting in the time magazine article that when a new man was involved in a mother’s life, it made the child’s father less likely to be part of the child’s life and less supportive. In the reading, it talked about how in Roman times, marriage and divorce and the production of children from different father’s was used to create alliances between different households. Of course, these are very different times, but the idea of children from multiple father’s has gone from one extreme to the other.

  4. Near the end of the Time magazine article, the author described marriage as a bond that uses glue, and living together as a bond that uses velcro. In general, this is probably true. For a lot of people, marriage empowers them to have a “commitment” state of mind. Without marriage, they would feel less bonded. In my own life, I have been with my partner, Peter, for 10 years as an unmarried couple. Peter and I have been in marriages before our relationship. I find that the difference is that the commitment to be with Peter is coming from within me, and believe me it has not been all roses. I find it to be more empowering than having an external legal document holding us together. The rest of the article appeared plausible, but there is a bit of judgement in assessing all non-married couples as if they are held together with velco.

  5. In the American chronicle article a few good points were brought to my attention. Women used to need a husband to rely on. Before women had the rights they do now the men were the ones who worked and brought in money. Today women don’t need to rely on a man. They are out in the workplace making just as much and sometimes more than men. Also the idea of marriage has changed. Now the commitment seems so serious that it can be a scary one to make. The article also pointed out that the the ideas of having a family has changed. Women used to get married and have kids when they were relatively young. Women don’t want to have kids when they are young because they want to be able to focus on themselves for a longer period because having to be responsible for others lives. I think this would probably have to do with the fact that women are becoming so successful with their careers. They have things they want to accomplish before settling down and starting a family so that doesn’t happen until later.

  6. I agree with the comments on the article american chronicle. I for one married in my 30’s and wanted to have a career and be stable in life before marrying or having children. Alot of young people today don’t always focus on their careers and rush into marriage and family then find it harder later on to settle into a career. I know there are alot of young people having babies before they even marry and wish they did things the other way around. I think it is powerful that women have a good place in the the working world and can make their own money and support a family.

  7. While looking at the second link posted I noticed that more than just the fact that people are divorcing more, the focus was more on what the factor are. Is it because of gay marriage? Is it because more women are working, and don’t feel the need for men. Is it because the sanctity of marriage means less or that the thought of ones self means more, that people don’t feel the need to have someone else to feel like they have succeeded in life.

Leave a Reply