Why Non-Matrimonial Partnership Is No Better Than Marriage
(I wrote this in response to this newspaper article.)
Matrimony can be many things- both good and bad, but I can't help but notice that the only thing Ms. Tong Ching Thing wants marriage to be is bad.
Starting with her grossly generalized assertions that marriage is "opression" and a "formality".
Was marriage made to be nothing more than a mere bastion of male supremacy? Maybe, but so what? Good things can be used for evil, too. Also, what I think the writer fails to see is that marriage was also started so that women could be under the care and protection of men.
And as repugnant as that may be for the writer's concept of "gender equality", women, in the early years of civilization, were hardly adept at fending for themselves. Not even a feminist would deny this. Of course, this has changed in recent years- but it still holds true in many places today.
This besides the part where marriage is something that happens when two people love each other and want to continue doing so the rest of their lives. And judging from the continuing cases of marriage throughout history, I don't think we see any problem with such an institution.
But is marriage about male dominance? It doesn't have to be. I see marriage, instead, as two different individuals coming together to work as one.
So what about cohabitation? It certainly can't be any better (and I would say it can only be worse) than marriage. Besides the problems it raises in regards to legal issues (and I think that the best laws for this area would be nothing other than a mimic of matrimonial laws), it certainly fares much worse when it comes to clamping down on partner hopping. And, may I add, STDs, Abortion, and what have you. (Which, by the way, are most common in "partnerships" than marriages)
I do agree with the writer's statement that "the more mundane an institution, the more people take it for granted".
Which is why we need to make marriage sacred and beautiful (we have done very little in this regard) once again.
Regardless whether religion or society is the one responsible for safeguarding marriage unions, it ultimately starts with ourselves.
Matrimony can be many things- both good and bad, but I can't help but notice that the only thing Ms. Tong Ching Thing wants marriage to be is bad.
Starting with her grossly generalized assertions that marriage is "opression" and a "formality".
Was marriage made to be nothing more than a mere bastion of male supremacy? Maybe, but so what? Good things can be used for evil, too. Also, what I think the writer fails to see is that marriage was also started so that women could be under the care and protection of men.
And as repugnant as that may be for the writer's concept of "gender equality", women, in the early years of civilization, were hardly adept at fending for themselves. Not even a feminist would deny this. Of course, this has changed in recent years- but it still holds true in many places today.
This besides the part where marriage is something that happens when two people love each other and want to continue doing so the rest of their lives. And judging from the continuing cases of marriage throughout history, I don't think we see any problem with such an institution.
But is marriage about male dominance? It doesn't have to be. I see marriage, instead, as two different individuals coming together to work as one.
So what about cohabitation? It certainly can't be any better (and I would say it can only be worse) than marriage. Besides the problems it raises in regards to legal issues (and I think that the best laws for this area would be nothing other than a mimic of matrimonial laws), it certainly fares much worse when it comes to clamping down on partner hopping. And, may I add, STDs, Abortion, and what have you. (Which, by the way, are most common in "partnerships" than marriages)
I do agree with the writer's statement that "the more mundane an institution, the more people take it for granted".
Which is why we need to make marriage sacred and beautiful (we have done very little in this regard) once again.
Regardless whether religion or society is the one responsible for safeguarding marriage unions, it ultimately starts with ourselves.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, July 04, 2006 at 10:38 PM.
|
