What’s Wrong in Marrying?

On reading Catherine Newman essay I Do. Not. Why I Wont Marry? , the first point that arises in the mind is the sum of gold of power and choice that women enjoy now. One can non simply imagine this pleasant of freedom of thought or expression from a woman say, a hundred years back. Those were the times when most women didnt level spend a penny the liberty to analyze or acknowledge their needs and desires. While the freedom that women enjoy today is a welcome change, Newmans essay is wrought with a number of misconceptions and apprehensions.It appears that she hasnt gotten over the disquietude of slavery that people experienced centuries ago, especially the virtuoso brought by the institution of sum. The invisible bond that keeps together any kindred is trust. It may a bond between a child and its mother or father, between friends, between a student and a teacher, between two life mates, or between maintain and wife. In todays world a man and a woman have every freedom t o use up their life partners.And, they can also choose on how they wish to make breakwhether they want to formalize their relationship by marrying or simply book on until they be true of each other. Prudent people bequeath use their wisdom in weighing the pros and cons of any relationship that they may get into. Newmans objection to join is the way in which a bride is given off by her father to her husband in the altars. She argues that the number of gifts that the father bestows on the daughter and the heavy money that he spends on the wedding make the bride look like a commodity that is being transferred from one to another for a sum.By this argument she overlooks the love and c be that the father has for the daughter, and the last thing that will be in the fathers mind at the altar will be the social welfare of his daughter and her new family and definitely not the money that he is spending on the occasion. There are many espousals that take place in a very simple man ner and there are many that take place in a pompous manner. It all depends on the spending power of the families concerned 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 wick from her father by telling that the bride blows away her naughty 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 healthy 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 begin 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 gay people. She argues that unite people fail to acknowledge gay people and until now humiliate them. This is a gross generalization 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 trying to promote the fount of the gay community. She acknowledges that she had had gay relationship in the past 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 currently be a viable option. Newman states out loud and clear that she doesnt believe in monogamy. The argument that closely follows this statement is purely sensual in nature. She argues if climbing onto the same exact somebody for fifty years will maximize our brief fling on the earth. She argues for variety and says that it seemed cruel and eccentric that one should have to give up so much in order to commit to a man. She agrees that she and her partne r do not practice monogamy and doesnt seem to have any dec about it. This doesnt justify her stand against marriage nor are her arguments sound enough to rationalize polygamy. virtually fears that Newman expresses towards marriage are the fear of losing her individual identity and the life-long commitment 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 removed from the world where people actually feel things The best life partner is exactly the sort of psyche who doesnt crave possession. She claims that marriage brings with it the baggage of possession of ones wife or husband This argument is feeble in todays world. People are instead independent to do what they want, and what keeps a family together is not possession but simple caring, and love and take. Newman seems to enjoy the fact that she gets to choose and be chosen to continue her relationship wit h 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 single space helps them to move forward and keeps them going she says. Dr. Neil Clark Warren in The Cohabitation Epidemic 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 feel s 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 bum around on and she continues arguing against marriage. Newmans fears are purely psychological in nature and they do not have any solid reason behind them. In putting forth pseudo quick 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, Whatever rapture 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 w alk out of marriages even after having children. So, Newmans argument that kids are permanent soul binding is void. However, with marriage, the commitment becomes intelligent and the people involved in the break up are reasonedly bound to fulfill certain obligations to each other. So even while the break up is painful, there is still a legal protection offered. In a live-in relationship, this protection doesnt exist.