Does marriage remain a patriarchal institution in contemporary society?
340405
I think women are becoming the superior wage earners. I saw a stat that by 2010 3 in 5 wives(In the US) will outearn their husbands.\n\nI don't think it's because men are sponges though. I see many more women conspiring to lay around the house and live off their husbands. It's just not working out because women are more ambitious and acquire more skills and education. Men try but they can't keep up.
823928
"I want to marry my dog"\nOk there's your example.  It is a slippery slope argument.  The institution of marriage was intended to be a sacred bond between one man and one woman.  What happens when you go outside of that?  The next step is polygamy.  Why shouldn't a man marry his favorite 12 women?  Let's take it farther: Why shouldn't a man marry a young boy, if the boy is consenting?  Why shouldn't beastiality be acceptable to the government as legit?  What about incest?  Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to marry a tree?\n\nThe danger is the cheapening of marriage and making a mockery of it.  This breeds apathy, which is what brought down the Roman Empire.
1160374
Your comment brings up a very valid point.\n\nThose proponents of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman say that if the definition were changed, where would it stop.\n\nI say marriage should be defined between two human beings that love eachother. However the polygamists may disagree as well as other members of society that have an 'unorthodox' view of what marriage is.
445049
I guess because it departs from tradition and what people are used to.  The women's movement was only 30-40 years ago, and a lot of people still aren't conditioned to the fact that a woman can find happiness and success on her own.  I am 27, rather attractive, own a business and make more money than most married couples my age, yet some people treat me like I've got one foot in the grave and had better hurry up and get married because 30 seems to be the magic deadline.  The truth is, I would love to get married when I'm damn good and ready to find the right one, whether it be tomorrow or when I'm 75.  I'm just not going to get married for the sake of marriage, which a lot of people seem to do (hence the divorce rate today).
742439
Society has changed. Women are much more attuned to the fact that they make up part of society. They are, generally, much less reliant on a man for their well being than in the past. In the days you seem to be speaking about women did not earn a wage so where dependent on the man. That is no longer the case and, that being so, will strike out on their own rather than put up with men having mistress because it was 'acceptable'. What you call 'rose coloured glasses' is a throw back to the days when it really was a man's world. Laws made by men, for men...........the time you are talking about .....marriages didn't work any more or less than they do now............what is different is that in those days women were expected to look after home and family and be totally reliant on the man, as wage earner. The difference is that women are less likely to 'grin and bear it' because her very existance depends on it..which back, even not that long ago, was the case.
563095
For the vast majority of western people, no.  But, I am sure that there are some families who still practice arranged marriage.  I don't personally know any, though.
741900
the institution of marriage has drastically changed over the last 100 years.  people marry for love, money, citizenship, whatever...\n\ni say if you have the money and want a hot young chick, go for it!
763276
Judaism considers marriage to be the ideal state of existence; a man without a wife, or a woman without a husband, are considered incomplete.\n\nClassical customs\nIn traditional Jewish society, from the era of the Talmud up to the enlightenment, social association of the sexes was usually restricted (tzeniut). In Orthodox Jewish communities these social restrictions are still practiced.\n\n\nBetrothal from the Mishnah and Talmud\nThe Mishna describes three ways of contracting betrothal (tractate Kiddushin 1:1):\n\nWith money (as when a man hands a woman an object of value, such as a ring or a coin, for the purpose of contracted marriage, and in the presence of two witnesses, and she actively accepts); \nThrough a shtar, a contract containing the betrothal declaration phrased as "through this contract"; or \nBy sexual intercourse with the intention of creating a bond of marriage, a method strongly discouraged by the rabbinic sages. \nToday only the betrothal ceremony involving the object of value (i.e. the equivalent of "with money"), almost always a ring, is practiced, but the others may be fallen back upon should a halachic dispute occur.\n\nEngagement for marriage was generally brought about by a third person, often a professional match-maker ("shadchan"). The process is called Shidduchim (Hebrew: matches). The shadchan received a "brokerage-fee" fixed by law or agreed upon by custom, as a rule a small percentage of the dowry. It was paid by either of the parties, or each paid one-half, at the betrothal or after the wedding. The rabbi, as a person enjoying special confidence, was also often employed as intermediary. Although the marriage preliminaries were the concern of the parents, their children were not forced into marriage over their objections.\n\n\nMarriage ceremony\nThe marriage ceremony is based on the rules for transfer of property or of rights in antiquity. In marriage, the woman accepts a ring (or something of value) from the man, accepting the terms of the marriage. This is called betrothal, or kiddushin or erusin. A ketubah ("[marriage] contract") is read publicly. Witnesses are required for both the signing of the ketubah and the ceremonies.\n\nAt the giving of the ring the groom (chosson) makes a declaration "You are consecrated to me, through this ring, according to the religion of Moses and Israel." Traditionally there is no verbal response on the part of the bride. She accepts the ring on her finger, and closes her hand, signifying acceptance.\n\nFinally the couple are joined in matrimony under the chuppah, in the ceremony of nissuin, symbolizing their setting up house together. Very often the chuppah is made of an outstretched tallit (Jewish prayer shawl), but it can be any sort of canopy.\n\nThe ceremony reaches its climax with both the bride and groom drinking wine. The groom then steps on the wine glass to break it. The origin of this custom is shrouded in mystery, and various understandings of this custom exist:\n\nThe oldest source seems to be from the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berakhot 31a; it has a story about the wedding of Rav Ashi's son. When the celebrants began to get carried away, Rav Ashi brought out and broke a crystal glass in front of them. The interpretation by the Tosafot (early medieval Talmudic commentators) is that even during moments of great celebration, one must maintain proper decorum. It may be related to the belief that it is best to temper one's joy, in order to avert inviting bad fortune. \nThe breaking of the glass represents the Jewish community's continuing sorrow of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem; no celebration is totally complete without the Temple. \nAmong Kabbalists (adherents of Jewish mysticism), this custom is said to be a reminder of the broken fragments of Creation, and our need to engage in Tikkun Olam, the repairing of the world on a spiritual level. \n\nReform and Conservati
1139054
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
1164517
I agree with you. We are on a slippery slope of governmental control of the most mundane daily activities if we let the government dictate what is or is not allowed. They government does not have the right to dictate who one can marry, what choices I can make with my body or control my choices!
334807
Most traditional societies anywhere prefer women to be married and have kids. In my masjid there are single, married, divorced (and staying unmarried), remarried sisters (women). The important thing is the faith. There are divorced women and unmarried women in the middle east. Under Sharia as long as they don't commit Zina (unlawful sex) there is no punishment. And men get punished for that (zina) too. It is not recommended though for a woman to live alone and culturally it may be frowned upon.\n\nDespite what you might see reported in ISLAM All muslims are encouraged to get educated - and particularly if the woman is pursuing eduation or a sucessful career marriage may be delayed (yes even in Saudi Arabia). Those countries that don't accept eduation for women are following their cultural laws above Islam.
111306
Pathfinder, your statement, "Marriage is the union of man and woman for the purpose of procreation (to keep the human race going)" is incorrect.  Elderly hetero couples not capable of producing offspring (senior citizens) get married as do young hetero couples that cannot produce offspring (because either the man or the woman is sterile).
51831
The institution of marriage was created around property rights including the rights of inheritance. \n\nToday we have two different institutions that are called marriage - one a civil marriage which is about the property rights and a religious marriage - which is a part of an individuals faith/morality. Civil marriage should be available to anyone who wants to enter into the legal contract. Religious marriage should be left up to the faith of the church (not the government).
961083
If you go strictly by one-man-one woman -- no.\nIn the overall human population, women outnumber men by a small percentage (about 52% to 48%).  That leaves a few million women out in the cold when it comes to husbands.\n\nThe higher ratio of women to men has been around ever since there have been humans (we all start out as female after conception, it takes a specific genetic and hormonal "kick" to make a male) -- it's one reason plural marriage (polygamy) was the rule in ancient cultures, it allowed all the women in a social group to have husbands.
265162
A couple theories here.Decades ago as unromantic as it sounds, women had more things to tie them to a marriage. Along with love, women usually weren't highly educated as they are today and most likely did not work out of the house. They were financially dependent on the husband.Also they had kids early in the marriage which solidified that bind even more. In todays society we are go-getters, we are educated, more often than not women are out there making the money and don't need the man to provide for them. WE also take responsibility for our reproduction and sexuality. We decide when we are ready to have a baby and don't just do it out of pressure to start a family. Also, women have more access to birth control methods that werent advertised decades ago.So sometimes we aren't as dependent on the man and have a desire to get out of the marriage and have the resources to actually do it. Also, marriages tend to last shorter because divorce has become more acceptable in our society. Not like decades before when you were looked at like scum if you had a divorce. Several reasons that marriages don't last. But there are always the ones that stand the test of time. I love my husband and would like to say our marriage will be the one that does last but in the society we live in today you just never ever know.
149141
Totally against it. Where does one stop in the changing of the meaning of marriage. If gays can have the right to marry, why not brothers and sisters? Why not be able to have two wives? Four wives? Why not be able to marry a 7 year old? Why not be able to marry a dead person? Why not an animal? Where does it stop once you begin the trek down that slippery slope?\n\nMarriage is a sacred rite derived from religion. I know you liberal secularists hate to hear that, but it is true. Most religions define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.\n\nJust one man's opinion.
554613
You are exactly right.And that is what the bible teaches.Man is to be the leader of the household and his decisions should stand firm.The wife should be silent in the home and in the church.Of course this view will reap criticism from the new world order,but society changes and not the words of the bible