What’s Wrong in Marrying?

On yarn Catherine Newman essay I Do. Not. Why I Wont unify? , the first point that arises in the mind is the amount of power and prime(a) that women enjoy at present. One can non simply imagine this kind of freedom of fancy or expression from a woman say, a hundred old age back. Those were the times when most women didnt even ca-ca the liberty to examine or occupy laid their needs and desires. While the freedom that women enjoy to daylight is a welcome change, Newmans essay is wrought with a outlet of misconceptions and apprehensions.It appears that she hasnt gotten over the fear of slavery that people experienced centuries ago, in particular the oneness brought by the institution of matrimony. The invisible bond that keeps together whatever kindred is trust. It may a bond between a pincer and its mother or father, between friends, between a student and a t distributivelyer, between two life renders, or between husband and wife. In todays world a man and a woman ha ve every freedom to choose their life partners.And, they can in addition choose on how they wish to livewhether they want to formalize their relationship by marrying or simply carry on until they atomic number 18 undisputable of each other. Prudent people will use their wisdom in weighing the pros and cons of any relationship that they may get into. Newmans protestation to marriage is the way in which a bride is given forward by her father to her husband in the altars. She argues that the number of gifts that the father bestows on the fille and the heavy money that he spends on the wedding make the bride cipher kindred a commodity that is being transferred from one to another for a sum.By this assertion she overlooks the love and c are that the father has for the daughter, and the last topic that will be in the fathers mind at the altar will be the welfare of his daughter and her new family and decidedly not the money that he is spending on the occasion. in that respect are many marriages that vex place in a very unreserved manner and at that place are many that take place in a pompous manner. It all depends on the spending capacity of the families touch and that doesnt have any relation to the bondage and goodwill that goes with the ceremony.Newman mocks at the ritual where the bride blows the candle from her father by telling that the bride blows away her gentle old independent self. This straw man argument totally misrepresents the brides position and it is a negative way of looking at things. It would have been healthier if she had looked at the ritual from the point of view of the bride lighting up one for her husband and had said that it portrays that fatherning of a new life. This only goes to strengthen Newmans misconceptions of marriage.Another lame argument that Newman puts forth against marriage is by projecting the funny people. She argues that married people fail to acknowledge gay people and even humiliate them. This is a gro ss abstractedness and her fear of marriage is further proved when she asks the readers to assume marriage as a fragile and gasping little injured bird in act to promote the cause of the gay community. She acknowledges that she had had gay relationship in the ultimo until she found her partner, Michael.Her thoughts are baseless when she argues that she will be doing injustice to her gay friends if I put on a beaded cream bodice and vowed myself away in front of all our gay friends. She assumes that they will be gossiping wickedly against her and even goes to justify that what theyre snubbing should certainly be a viable option. Newman states out loud and clear that she doesnt believe in monogamousness. The argument that closely follows this statement is purely sensual in nature. She argues if mounting onto the same exact soulfulness for fifty years will maximise our brief fling on the earth. She argues for variety and says that it seemed cruel and unusual that one should hav e to give up so much in align to commit to a man. She agrees that she and her partner do not practice monogamy and doesnt seem to have any regrets about it. This doesnt justify her stand against marriage nor are her arguments sound enough to edit out polygamy. Some fears that Newman expresses towards marriage are the fear of losing her individual identity and the life- languish trueness that wedlock demands. She conveys that neither she nor her partner ever felt the need to get married.She argues that strongly held beliefs on marriage and commitment can be distant from the world where people actually feel things The best life partner is exactly the sort of person who doesnt crave possession. She claims that marriage brings with it the luggage of possession of ones wife or husband This argument is feeble in todays world. People are sooner independent to do what they want, and what keeps a family together is not possession except simple caring, and love and take. Newman seems to enjoy the fact that she gets to choose and be chosen to continue her relationship with her partner every day.She says that when a couple is not married and when they remain partners, they have to constantly keep choosing each other. She seems to take pleasure in the choice that she and her partner make every day to keep the relationship going. This way they feel more wanted and the individual space helps them to move forward and keeps them going she says. Dr. Neil Clark Warren in The Cohabitation pestilential sums up this attitude beautifully well The fundamental agreement upon which live-in relationships are based is conditional commitment. This attitude says, Ill stick with you as long as things go well.But if we run into problems, all bets are off. Relationships that begin with a quasi-commitment carry the same mind-set into marriage. When things become trying, as inevitably they will from time to time, the spouses say goodbye. Newman says that they are quite devoted to each other, and with the birth of her child the bond between them has only grown stronger. She feels that there cannot be anything more permanent soul binding than the sharing of the child. She proudly confesses that her partner has taken on to his duties as a father like a fish to water.But somehow, the fear of getting married seems to frig around on and she continues arguing against marriage. Newmans fears are purely psychological in nature and they do not have any solid think behind them. In putting forth pseudo intellectual arguments she does not offer clarity of thought. Her thoughts are distorted views coming from an immature person with some kind of a psychological fear for commitment. It is natural that a person who seems to have a fear psychosis towards marriage objects to it. Wedding or live-in relationshipit all depends upon the individuals. As Nancy L. Van Pelt and Fleming H.Revell put it, some(prenominal) happiness is achieved results from personal effort, knowledge , love, and commitment. No magic happens with marriages in making individuals better. There are men and women who walk out of marriages even after having children. So, Newmans argument that kids are permanent soul binding is void. However, with marriage, the commitment becomes reasoned and the people involved in the break up are legitimately bound to fulfill certain obligations to each other. So even epoch the break up is painful, there is still a legal safeguard offered. In a live-in relationship, this protection doesnt exist.