Unity among family members is essential as it aid family member unite forces to conquer social problems. In some instances cultures fuse to form new cultures. Marriages in some cases take an interracial…
Download file to see previous pages...
Hohman (2002) relates this to cultural intolerance. Family members quest to protect their own culture prompt many to encourage marriage from the same race. Those involved in interracial relationships are perceived to be endangering their indigenous culture.
Intolerance problem may persist especially in families who are cocooned in their traditional beliefs and are opposed to multicultural approaches. Families would go to the largest expend to protect their values. These values may be oppressing to some extent. The social status of an individual could be affected in an event family members are not familiar with interracial marriages.
Stereotype is a major concern to those involved in interracial marriages. Family members could neglect or reject children from mixed races. This may have psychological effect to the children and their parents. Mockery and verbal abuses directed to such children could affect their social wellbeing. The parents’ role in crucial family decision-making processes could be minimized on the assumption that marring from a different race makes them less equal to other family members.
In conclusion, one marring from a different race could caught between prioritizing his or her new family and protecting the values of the extended family. Family members may feel betrayed in an event choices do not favor their wishes. The married couple could face a psychological war triggered by other family members. Children would suffer the most as they would face stereotypes and could be subjected neglect to do their cross-cultural approach. In the end, family members could be the reason as to why such marriages may fail to
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
In the late 19th and early 20th century marriage was not something that women really looked forward to. In fact, initially marriage had been a largely patriarchal institution although feminist group did try to bring about reforms for the women to be able to have certain rights after their marriage.
Marriage has legal as well as social aspects. It is evident that many countries grant tax benefits to married couples. Marriage ensures the property rights if one partner is died or permanently disabled. In a social point of view, marriage constitutes a couple’s commitment to each other and their agreement as a family unit.
Even though gay marriage possesses legal recognition in some states, the moral and ethical dimensions were always questioned by intellectuals, sociologists, researchers and experts. It is evident that gay marriage is against the natural order; it undermines the sacred institution of marriage and natural heterosexual relationships which result in the procreation of children and paves the way for familial relationships.
Equally as vocal, however, are the members of society who are committed to keeping the ‘traditional definition’ of marriage in tact and making sure that only one woman and one man are permitted to marry for decades to come. On the one side, many contend, “Gay marriage is really a matter of respect and human rights” (Mollmann 105).
If, as the argument goes, there has not been a fundamental alteration of what it means for two people to be married, then the institution of marriage is one that is, indeed, sacrosanct, and should not be re-examined. However, as this essay shows, marriage, as an institution, has evolved, and is continuing to evolve, which means that the institution can evolve in the direction of equality, without too much concern.
Traditionally, family was seen as the basic unit of the society and was henceforth valued not only by the society but also be the authority. The spread of culture through globalization has been some of the influential factors that have caused the breakdown of marriage institution.
ter the state of the law, people still get married, and almost half of couples will end up getting divorced, 60 percent of who have children (Nolan, 2011, 185; Wardle, 2009, 800). The United States led the world in the rate of divorce in 1916 and still does to date (Nolan, 2011,
ts, regardless of ceremony, to being subjected to church and state restrictions in order to control moral behaviour, resource allocations for “legal” beneficiaries, and so many other reasons.
Government involvement in the matrimonial issues began in the 16th century when it