Marriage Should Not Be The Sole Reason For Marriage

1713 Words7 Pages
In contemporary society, particularly in contemporary America, divorce rates have spiked to rates as high as 4.1 marital separations per 1000 individuals. This escalation has left many very ambivalent of the future of marriage in the world, a commitment that in many respects has been viewed as a lifelong or even lasting for eternity. Such surges in divorces seem to be more visible in cultures that allow for free-choice mate selection, where individuals are free to choose whom they wish to marry. This is highly contrasting to other cultures such as Japanese culture where arranged marriages are the regular practices of many kin-groups. Often free-choice societies are blamed for their elevated divorce rates because such individuals fail to take into account endogamy issues such as family approval, spouse’s stability, and what the reasons for marriage are other than love. The burden for divorce rates in free-choice societies such as the United States cannot be placed solely on the reason of couple’s ignorance in regards to endogamy factors, but ultimately love should not be the sole reason for marriage. Marriage is about companionship, family, and love, not necessarily in the particular order. As anthropologist have studied marriages they have found that in many respects it is culture universal. However, it is very difficult to develop one definitive definition for the term as marriage varies worldwide. According to Claude Lévi Strauss who is quoted in Janet Carsten’s after Kinship, societal rules often govern what a legitimate marriage is within a society (Carsten 12). Furthermore, there does not appear to be any positive rule regarding marriage only negative rules. In other words, there only appears to be rules stating who one ab... ... middle of paper ... ...ple, in a spouse become the next of kin in times of medical emergencies or sudden tragic death and thus by getting married one is also gaining a medical proxy. However marriage is not necessarily guarantee the spouse complete medical decision. As Carsten writes about an English woman named Diane Blood who’s husband died a very sudden death, she notes that Blood endured several legal obstacles in ultimately attempting to impregnate herself with her late husbands sperm. The courts often ruled that because she did not have expressed consent from Mr. Blood prior to his death she was not entitled to his sperm after death and thus the sperm should have never been harvested postmortem anyway (Carsten 1). As a result, marriage should not be only based on love but should also be to reap the benefits of marriage such as a medical proxy and some forms of health insurance.
Open Document