|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
Defending Marriage | by Illiad | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
| In either view, the individual is just a pawn. |
by esbita |
2006-06-22 09:35:38 |
The view the author paints as the "old" function of marriage as the individuals being pawns to their families' interests(uniting families and marrying your sibling's widow or widower, with the individuals in the marriage being irrelevant to its purpose). Individual self-fulfillment was not an issue.
Then the author argues that marriage does not suit the needs of a mobile, industrial SOCIETY. To hell with maintaining family and friendship relationships, or staying with a partner you love, just go wherever the jobs are and grab whoever is convenient and available when you get there.
Again, it does not sound like the individual's needs and wishes are taken account in this lifestyle.
C.S. Lewis, a relatively well respected "modern" Christian writer, pointed out that there should be a clear distinction between civil marriage and Christian marriage. That said, he argued that divorce should not be taken lightly, since by marrying, and especially having children, the woman has limited/damaged her employment prospects. In that light, especially with children, it would not be fair or just to dissolve the partnership just because it gets "old" since the function of marriage is ALSO to provide a stable environment for raising children.
Changes in society and discrimination laws make it easier for women to cope with divorce now, but being a single parent is never easy, and there's been loads of commentary on the impact the lack of a father-figure in the house has on children. In another fashion, a two parent household is still needed- women work, but the job market is more volatile.
So, it's not always about you, but at least with the modern notion of (Christian) marriage, it's a *commitment* that YOU decide to enter, and that YOU are responsible for honoring. The benefits of a stable marriage are not even mentioned at all in this argument- instead aiming for the strawman description of 1950's twin beds (newsflash: The Greatest Generation had sex. LOTS of it. That's why we had the Baby Boom).
Downplay marriage and family because SOCIETY wants a bunch of mobile serfs that will pursue jobs at the cost of all family and personal relationships?
Sorry, that's bulls4. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
You worded it a bit more strongly, | by Feng_Li | 2006-06-22 09:41:06 |
|
My feathers are ruffled atm. | by esbita | 2006-06-22 09:43:18 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
