Is marriage a necessary sacrifice of individual freedom for the sake of a healthy society & future generation?

Is marriage necessary? Is individual freedom compromised? Is it necessary so that the society would be sane and healthy? Is it necessary to ensure a healthy future generation? Is this why a married person is considered a more responsible, dependable and respectable member of the society?Is marriage a necessary sacrifice of individual freedom for the sake of a healthy society %26amp; future generation?
Yeah, for me marriage is necessary. But i will not call it a sacrifice, but instead, marriage is a sacred vow and a pure joy of two combined people who are trully in love with each other and who will surely make this society and future generation more healthy coz they are happy to find each other in this superficial and lonely world...Is marriage a necessary sacrifice of individual freedom for the sake of a healthy society %26amp; future generation?
Eh. Marriage is all a part of the economy. Married couples are encouraged to produce offspring. The offspring will go to school, probably to college, get a job, pay taxes, and essentially pay more money in general. I don't feel a marriage is neccessary to have a healthy and devoted relationship, it's just the social norm/expectancy.
small,





not if the people see it as a sacrafice of individual freedom.





its supposed to be the union of two people that love one another that want to spend their lives together.





no, i dont belive individual freedom is comprimised.





no, its not necessary, but sweet.


of coarse its necessary to ensure a healthy future generation.





the only reason married people are assumed to be more responsible, dependable and respectable is because they have to worry about the well being of themselves and their family.








hope this answers your uestion
It's a cultural construct and was originally a legal contract. It isn't necessary now except for certain legal rights.
Marriage isn't a sacrifice of freedom, it's a sacrifice of the chance for men to spread their genes beyond their ability to care for children and it's a sacrifice of the chance for women to find a richer guy. And you thought you were cynical saying it's a sacrifice of freedom! ;-)





Anyways, marriage is a social contract that (traditionally) signifies you are a grownup, a Somebody in your family (whether you are male or female, it has always been so)... you count, in the sense that you provide for others (traditionally the man) and/or you parent children. Marriage is a big status change because a married person is, generally %26amp; traditionally speaking, a *responsible* member of the society. A married person accepts responsibility to/for others, represents a family, and thus should be mature enough to honor a commitment and give of him/herself. That's why married people are subtly senior in social status. It's only a sacrifice if you're not mature enough and not ready, and value some kind of ';individual freedom'; to hoard your own goods and be sexually promiscuous forever, over social connections.





I don't really think that marrieds are necessarily more responsible, I just think that psychologically we assume they must be, and there is a HUGE social / psychological importance we instinctively attach to parenthood (and getting married is, symbolically, becoming a member of the ';parent'; generation). Long-term monogamy is, in those cultures where resources are plentiful and monogamy is to the advantage of both sexes, simply the best way to pool resources fairly for the good of the next generation. It's not necessarily the only way to ensure a stable society.





Of course, in the society I live in, all this is purely academic, because resources are so haphazardly and unfairly distributed to begin with...
Definitely yes
No.
No...I certainly don't believe that marriage is a necessary institution. But as a person who married...for the first time...at the age of 42, I can tell you that - if its right - is provides greater freedom, confidence and happiness.





When I was a young girl, like others, I dreamed about my wedding. And being married. It was like a badge of honour, I suppose. And it would make me mature, responsible and all those things you mention. As I got older, I saw nothing but unhappiness coming from the marriages of my friends. And it turned me off the whole thing. I didn't want to become a statistic and, as I didn't want children, I didn't see the necessity. When I met my now husband, though, those feelings changed. Living with him wasn't enough...I wanted to be married to him. To take his name. And it has not compromised my individual freedom - in fact, it has given me more.
In the past, it was a sacrifice (of the bride's individual freedom). Now it seems to be just a pretext to have a big party (and expose the parent's health) ... then divorce!
I believe marriage does keep order in society. That way peoplea ren't running around having babies, but feel a sense of responsibility to the people they procreate with and the offspring they have.





Moreover, I believe you can be in love with one person enough to only want to be with him/her for the rest of your life.
I don't know about the current society, but I do believe the word ';necessary'; wouldn't fit for the assumption...





In history, I assume, marriage began when there was a government... So, if we don't have government, we probably wouldn't have marriage.





And if we are to continuity thinking about this thought, we would later understand, there was government because there was trade... And there was trade because of Chinese people...(or not)


Blame it all to them..(if not)
i believe that marriage will take away your freedom that is why i will not married till i am 25 so i can have more fun and be serious later
The social value of commitment is not that it restricts our individual freedom, but that it empowers us as individuals by providing meaningful structure in our lives. Without such structure, individual freedom itself has no real meaning. But marriage is not just about commitment, in fact it is not even primarily about commitment. Marriage is a social institution historically rooted in the desire of men to control female sexuality. Men wanted to pass wealth and social privilege through their biological offspring, but in order to do this they needed to be sure who their true biological children were. Thus women became resources 鈥?essentially containers in which to plant seeds so that men can perpetuate their gene line. Thus, like any valuable resource, women became property. (If there is gold lying around, and it is perceived as valuable, you can be sure that someone will want to acquire power and privilege by owning it.) Marriage was a means to transfer and acquire property, as well as a means to forge social/political ties.





Nowadays women are not technically considered to be property in the old sense, but we do still retain some of the old psychology that has been passed down through the ages. Both men and women tend to be ';possessive'; of their lovers, and although we don't explicitly talk in these terms very much any more, men do still want to be sure who their biological children are, and so there are still deep social motivations to control female sexuality. In general we are still more offended by sexually adventurous women (we call them a variety of unflattering names), and most modern marriages still include the father of the bride ';giving away'; his daughter. This is also why (mostly unconsciously) so many people are so rabidly opposed to gay marriage and other alternative lifestyles. The implicit meanings of marriage are imbedded deep in our social psyche, and notions like gay marriage and polyamory force a radical paradigm shift that most people find uncomfortable.





So is marriage necessary? No, not really, but we are products of our history, and we tend not to be conscious of our deeper motivations in life, thus many ancient social patterns continue to get passed on from one generation to the next, despite our perception of ourselves as being totally modern and different from those people who lived ages ago. Marriage as the form of institution we know today is not necessary, but I would say that some form of socially-recognized celebration of commitment to live in cooperative community (aka ';family'; of some sort) is socially and spiritually valuable. Children need stability 鈥?they need to know that they are loved and that the people who love them are committed to being there for them. The traditional nuclear family fueled by the traditional concept of marriage does not actually work very well. It is not natural, nor is it realistic, thus way too many children end up in stressful circumstances 鈥?domestic abuse, broken homes, etc.





Our concepts of commitment and family need to change. Prior to the nuclear family model, we had extended families. These tended to work somewhat better (although they were still burdened by the traditional expectations of monogamous marriage), and I suggest that we start thinking in more extended-family terms. But the concept of ';family'; should not be artificially limited by the notions of traditional monogamous marriage. A family should be any group of people who love each other and are committed to nurture and support each other for life. Monogamy is fine for those who want it, but it should not be the sole criteria for socially judging the success or social value of people, and it should not be the only form of loving commitment that we publicly acknowledge and celebrate. Human nature 鈥?like all of nature 鈥?is fundamentally diverse. Our traditional emphasis on heterosexual monogamous marriage attempts to force everyone into the same box, and this is simply not a socially healthy thing to do. We owe it to ourselves, and to future generations to think outside the box, live consciously, and focus on letting people explore their own paths in life, rather than insisting that they all follow a certain particular officially sanctioned path.
In the human experience there has been a relationship between a man and woman primarily one of each and lasting until one partner has died. No, this relationship is not necessary for a stable society. One has only look at Islamic nations to see a different form of marriage that has resulted in a stable society.


One may submit that the Native Americans had stable societies with differing forms of adult relationships. I suspect that you might be inferring to the lower insurance, tax rates and other finanical benefits accorded to married folk. If one examines the makeup of US familes, one sees that now the majority are single parent homes. I neither support or am against the traditional marriage. It seems sad to me that many children do not have the male and female parent role model.That being said, one good parent might be better for the child than two bad parents. See the articles linked below.
Marriage has existed in some form or fashion in every society in recorded human history. It is natural to our species. Many feminist texts assert that marriage was created by men as a means of controlling women and offspring, but consider the effort it takes to raise a human child, as opposed to less developed primates. Can a newborn human cling to it's mother's body while she scavenges for food? Can it get up and follow her around, or be left alone for long periods of time? And how long does it take a human to become independant? One year? Maybe two?





Yeah right.





Without the constructs of modern society, human children are highly dependant on their mothers. The child's level of dependance would have made it nearly impossible for a mother to ensure survival for herself and her child without outside help. And that big hairy guy who fathered the child fit the bill.





Now I sound like a chauvanist, but honestly, if we women were as stupid as some feminist texts make us out to be, the human race would have died out long ago. Is marriage necessary? Maybe not for survival nowadays, but if you look at the statistics, children who grow up in a home with their married biological parents are FAR better off than children in any other living situation. Argue all you want--the numbers speak for themselves.
Probably yes, to all of your questions. Society uses marriage as a part of social structure, but it has existed regardless of its mere use to society at large. I think many people find it a a meaningful and pleasant way to live with one another. Otherwise it would not be so prevalent in every culture in every time period. No one has to force people to marry just to ensure that society is upheld. They're going to do it anyway. It's a cause of social structure, not an effect.
I have not married and will never marry. It is merely one more way that priests, kings, etc. control the peasants. Whoever has wife and kids has given hostages to fortune, it is said. As a single man, I can leave a job at once if supervisors are unfair, but if I had a family, I'd not be able to leave until I had another job. I am not religious, so no priest can tell me that he must sanction my relationships with women. Neither priests nor kings rule me through marriage. It is unr33ealistic to make a vbow to stay with someone the rest of your life. My sisters have been married three times apiece. I take vows too seriously to make them thrice in such manner.