Some think that marriage is the social contract that legitimizes the process of living together and building up a family. It is true that government takes place in this as a third party and this is something to be discussed on. In my opinion, government has to participate in this stage of personal relationships if there is something to be legitimized. It is their duty to stabilize social lives too. So I think that there is nothing to be confused when the state takes part in the marriage institution.
People need marriage to be accepted and recognized as couples by the society and gay marriage is an issue that is related to this. It can be considered that GLBT people see this as a route to be accepted by the society like the heterosexuals' demand for being introduced as couples. I think that it is an issue of equality. They want to be accepted as equally as the others. Actually, what we say by this is also something that seperates them from the society, which, I think, is not true to say. Therefore, there is no need for preventing them from marrying because they will live together or even marry abroad (in countries that this is allowed) if they want to.
To sum up, I think the participation of the government in the marriage institution can be considered as necessary, but I do not agree with the ideas that many countries' governments share on the issue of gay marriage. Although it might be an idea changing from person to person, as this kind of marriage might be regarded as unusual and affect the social life in a strange way, I think the ordinary life would deal with this so called "unusual case" if it was more frequent and maybe legal.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
marriage & children..
Marriage is said to be necessary for men and women in public life, under the condition that they share a whole life together with children. Actually "child" is not a necessary unit of a marriage. At this stage, it can be thought that "then why did you two get married?". I think it is a reasonable idea that men and women do not have to get married if there is not a plan for raising up a child in the future. The loyalty and trust between the man and woman can be necessary for what we call "love".
Marriage can just be considered as a social contract between the two and not even that much necessary for proving that they love eachother. So if we think that marriage is some kind of contract for a healthy and bright family that would support their children with a good future, than it is inevitable for the society to produce new kind of traditions, rules and a common structure for this. In time, this became an important stage of human life that, for most of the people, comes after education or having a job etc. but I think, it should be totally unnecessary for couples just to prove their love, without planning to bring up a child, which unhappily became a part of our lives. The situations that result with children without parents who live together, kind of supports this idea of why we should not take marriage as a common "activity" without a serious aim.
Marriage can just be considered as a social contract between the two and not even that much necessary for proving that they love eachother. So if we think that marriage is some kind of contract for a healthy and bright family that would support their children with a good future, than it is inevitable for the society to produce new kind of traditions, rules and a common structure for this. In time, this became an important stage of human life that, for most of the people, comes after education or having a job etc. but I think, it should be totally unnecessary for couples just to prove their love, without planning to bring up a child, which unhappily became a part of our lives. The situations that result with children without parents who live together, kind of supports this idea of why we should not take marriage as a common "activity" without a serious aim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)