Cohabitation Before Marriage Essay Example for Free

Cohabitation Before Marriage Essay Does living together before marriage help or hurt relationships? This question has plagued couples for the last few decades, as both the numbers of those living together without being married and the rate of divorce has grown. I think living together before marriage can only help people avoid divorce, as they are given the chance to see what it is like to live with either the specific person, or a person for the first time. This also brings up the questions of why divorce rates are up and whether it has anything to do with living together before marriage. I bring certain prejudices about it, believing that living together before marriage does not negatively impact couples’ ability to stay together after marriage, as I have seen it work many times. In the end, I will attempt to make the connection between the two, if there is one, or explain why people think there may be. SOURCES: Hurley, D. (2005, April 19). Divorce Rate: Its Not as High as You Think. The New York Times. Divorce Statistics Collection. Retrieved August 9, 2008, from http://www. divorcereform. org/nyt05. html Knadler, J. (2005, December). Is Five Years the New Forever? Cosmopolitan. Vol. 239, Iss. 6; pg. 149-152. Kramer, E. (2004, October). COHABITATION: JUST A PHASE? Psychology Today. Vol. 37, Iss. 5; pg. 28-29. Whether because of the instinct to procreate, emotional desire, or compulsion to follow social norms, human pair-bonding leads often to marriage. Defined as a social institution, religious sacrament, and personal commitment, marriage continues to evolve, growing to include a more relaxed attitude to divorce and the practice of cohabitation before marriage. Both of these subjects have sparked heated debates, with the issue of cohabitation before marriage being the latest movement in the realm of matrimony. While many opponents of cohabitation before marriage cite a lack of core family and moral values that have sanctified union through marriage for millennia, recent studies have shown that cohabitation before marriage is not only increasing in popularity, but may be beneficial compared to marriage first, as evidenced by the increasing divorce rate among married couples, the decrease of overall marriages, and the ever-changing landscape of marriage throughout history. Marriage between a man and a woman has long been the backbone of social cooperation and society itself. Marriage offered greater economic stability, the opportunity to produce heirs, and was often utilized as a tool to strengthen alliances between groups. Marriage echoed the foundational desire for societal regulations and norms, and like society, marriage continuously evolved, redefining itself and its purpose. From the days ancient Mesopotamia to Greece and Rome, marriage was largely a civic obligation. However, the proliferation of polytheistic religions as ultimate moral authorities transformed marriage into an expression of faith. Until the emergence of modern nation-states, most marriages were conducted under one or another religious regime. Starting with the Protestant Reformation, â€Å"most states took over their dominant religion’s marriage laws; debate has ensued ever since whenever a nation deviates from the still powerful religious rules that sanctify marriage† (Miller, 1999). Despite these dogmatic rules, outlawed actions such as unmarried cohabitation and divorce have become commonplace among couples, and the cause and effects are mixed. According to an analysis of new census figures by The New York Times, married couples, whose numbers have been declining for decades as a proportion of American households, have slipped into a minority in the United States. The American Community Survey, released in October by the Census Bureau, found that â€Å"49. 7 percent, or 55. 2 million, of the nation’s 111. 1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples — with and without children — just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent five years earlier† (Hurley, 2005). This trend shows that less and less heterosexual couples are choosing to get married, instead preferring to cohabitate and have children without marriage. Cohabitation can have many important benefits that marriage cannot, even if it comes with no religious sanctification or government protection. Cohabitation before marriage can be for a variety of reasons. Some couples may use it to see if they can live with the person, while others may do it simply out of convenience, and still others may do it for more practical reasons such as to save money. Susan Sassler, a sociology professor at Ohio State University, interviewed undergraduate and graduate students who had been living with a romantic partner for at least three months and asked them why they decided to move in with their partners. Fewer than a third of interviewees reported discussing their ideas for the future before making the move, and even fewer had mentioned marriage in their discussions with their partners; nearly a fifth specifically stated that they weren’t using cohabitation as a trial for marriage, and the most commonly cited reasons for moving in together were â€Å"saving money, convenience and the need for housing† (Kramer, 2004). This study helps show that cohabitation before marriage is not necessarily anything more than a practical move on the part of the couple. Whether or not the couple gets married seems to be secondary to the mutually beneficial arrangement that can allow many young couples to pursue personal and professional goals more easily with the support system offered by such a thing as marriage, with the freedom offered by being single. In the United States, it is widely believed that one in two marriages will end in divorce, so while many couples live together out of sheer practicality, cohabitation may be a good way to avoid the increasing divorce rate. The rate of divorce today is considered to be roughly 43% by the National Center for Health Statistics but was moved back up to around 50% by the Census Bureau in 2002. Most recently, according to the New York Times, it has been revised downward to just over 40%. (Crouch, 2005) This lower figure could be due to the fact that less people are getting married and choosing instead to cohabitate, but it cannot be denied that less people are getting and staying married than ever before. The proliferation of cohabitation before marriage could be for a great number of reasons, including the increasingly fast pace of society, a more cynical view of traditional morality, or even the more evolved view that couples do not have to sanctify their union through religion or law. Studies on successful cohabitation are difficult to perform, and no concrete statistics such as divorce rates offer clear-cut answers to its ultimate success or failure. However, moving past religious and social dogma that often frowns upon cohabitation before marriage, it would seem to be preferential for young couples to do before getting married, and many have. According to Jessie Knadler of Cosmopolitan Magazine, â€Å"many couples today live together before they marry, roughly 70 percent versus less than 5 percent 40 years ago† (Knadler, 2005). While this number suggests that virtually all couples that marry live together first, it also leads to a pitfall that cohabitating couples must avoid, namely seeing marriage as the next logical step in the relationship. As evidenced in the Sassler study, many of these cohabitating couples are doing it out of practical reasons, sharing money, bank accounts, bills, and such; to move this arrangement into marriage without a strong foundation is a risky mistake that ends in divorce nearly half of the time. The casual acceptance of divorce in today’s society seems to offer couples an easy way out whenever they so choose, unlike a few short decades ago when divorce was considered taboo. Divorce ultimately costs not only the couple, but also society as a whole, in legal fees and wasted court time. While breakups are rarely pleasant, they can prevent many of these personal fights from entering the public arena. The success of any marriage, relationship, or partnership depends on the trust and commitment of those who enter into it. Cohabitation can be a good way to lead to marriage, but it takes work and honesty between both partners. If the partners see a future with each other, marriage is the next logical step. However, if they are living together out of convenience, perhaps marriage is a bad idea. And, while marriage continues to evolve and to some degree evaporate, human relationships will always be too complex and diverse to generalize. REFERENCES Crouch, J. (2005). Divorce Rates. Divorce Reform Page. Americans for Divorce. Retrieved August 9, 2008, from http://www. divorcereform. org/rates. html Hurley, D. (2005, April 19). Divorce Rate: Its Not as High as You Think. The New York Times. Divorce Statistics Collection. Retrieved August 9, 2008, from http://www. divorcereform. org/nyt05. html Knadler, J. (2005, December). Is Five Years the New Forever? Cosmopolitan. Vol. 239, Iss. 6; pg. 149-152. Kramer, E. (2004, October). COHABITATION: JUST A PHASE? Psychology Today. Vol. 37, Iss. 5; pg. 28-29. Miller, M. (1999, March/April). What is Marriage For? : A Conversation with E. J. Graff. UU World Magazine. 37 pars. Retrieved August 9, 2008, from http://www. uua. org/world/0399feat3. html

Why I Love My Mac :: Personal Narrative Writing

Why I Love My Mac I have always loved computers. In school they fascinated me and were fun to play with. When I grew up and became a secretary, I delighted in recreating print documents and forms on my computer using WordPerfect for DOS. My daily success was measured by how little I used my typewriter. The only thing I didn't like was how ugly the programs were on the screen. The backgrounds were always black or royal blue, with (full-bodied shudder) red or green type. Some programs allowed a modicum of visual customization, but the danger of damaging your eyesight was prevalent (imagine red type on a royal blue background!). Still, computers were way more fun than typewriters. No more using calculators either! Each time I had to perform a calculation repetitively, I created a spreadsheet that would do it for me. Although I was "Suzy Super Computer-Using Secretary," I had no clue how the computer actually functioned, nor did I care. When I saw my first Macintosh, my eyes were wide as saucers. It was colorful! It had little pictures on the desktop! No more black or royal blue screen and funky colored type! (Although with some tweaking in the customization settings you could attain that horrid look.) I don't know how but that little Mac exuded a feeling of friendliness and ease of use. Even the cables in the back were "picture-coded" to the plugs in which they belonged! As far as the software, I could poke around in any folder on the hard drive, double-click on anything, and the computer told me what that item was used for. If it was something I shouldn't be messing with, a dialogue box would appear stating, "This extension is used by the system and cannot be opened." When I wanted to delete something I threw it in the trashcan. How logical! And wow, I could open several documents at once, move the windows around, and a word processing document actually looked on screen exactly like it would print. The Mac seemed logical, pure and simply, and it seemed interesting. I knew at that moment when the time came for me to buy a home computer, I would buy a Macintosh. It would be something I could operate, maintain, and upgrade myself. No need to call the geeky, scary, and expensive PC technician to come fix my computer. I could install new software, attach new peripherals, and even upgrade the memory all by myself.

Federalism in India Essay

India is a big country characterized by cultural, regional, linguistic and geographical diversities. Such a diverse and vast country cannot be administered and ruled from a single centre. Historically, though India was not a federal state, its various regions enjoyed adequate autonomy from central rule. Keeping in view these factors in mind, the Constitution makers of India opted for the federal form of government. Though, the Government of India Act 1935 envisaged a federal set-up for India; federal provisions of the Act were not enforced. Thus, India became a federal polity with the Constitution of India. Federalism is a system of governance in which the powers to legislate is in two levels as Central and subordinate levels. Features of Federalism Federalism in India has a strong bias towards the Union Government. Some unique features of federalism in India are: * There is no equality of state representation. Representation in the Parliament can vary widely from one state to another depending on a number of factors including demography and total land area. * No double citizenship, i.e. no separate citizenship for country and state. * The consent of a state is not required by the Parliament to alter its boundaries. * No state, except Jammu and Kashmir, can draw its own Constitution. * No state has the right to secede. * No division of public services. The main features of Federalism * Provision for more than one form or government to act simultaneously on the same territory and on the same time. * Each government must have their own authority and spheres of power, though they may overlap. * Neither level of government, state or national can abolished the other. Why Federalism is Important? Federalism is important because of the following reasons: * Because of diversity, there is a division in the power of federalism (to legislate in better manner). * For better Administration. * Economic development in cultural diversity, linguistic groups, traditions, customs, natural resources. The concept is taken from U.S.A. in 1776 and at the time of U.S. government independence. How Democracy is linked with Federalism? In a democracy, the involvement of people at state level is more, as the people are free to choose their own representatives, for the people, of the people, by the people. What makes India a Federal Country? India is a vast country with numerous languages, religions and regions. The concept of federalism plays a vital role and the power sharing arrangements plays a crucial role in maintaining unity and harmony in the country. India got its independence in 1947 but it also resulted in painful partition that paved way to the formation of Pakistan. After independence, several princely states became a part of the country and the constitution declared India as a Union States. Despite the fact that the word federalism is not used or implied with Indian Union but it is largely based on the principles of federalism. All the above key features of federalism are well suited to the provisions of the Indian Constitution. The constitution of India provided two tiers of levels of governments â€Å"Central or Union Governments representing the Union of India and the state governments. Later, a third tier or level of federalism was formed and added in the forms of Panchayats and Municipalities. These three different tiers of governments enjoy separate jurisdictions and the constitution provides a three- fold distribution of legislative powers between the Union governments and the state governments. It comprises of three major lists and they are as follows: – 1. Union List: – This list includes subjects of national importance such as defence, foreign affairs, banking, communications and currency. They form as the part of Union list as we need a uniform policy on these important matters throughout the country. Union or Central government can only make laws relating to these above mentioned important subjects. 2. State List: – This list contains subjects of state and local significance and state governments alone can make laws relating to subjects like police, trade, commerce, agriculture and irrigation. 3. Concurrent List: – It can also be termed as co-existing list and includes subjects of common interest to both the Union Government as well as the State Governments. It includes subjects like education, forest, trade unions, marriage, adoption and succession. Both levels of government (Union and State governments) can make laws on these subjects. If their laws conflict with each other then the law made by the Union Government will reign and succeed. How is Federalism practiced? The success of federalism in India cannot be merely attributed to constitutional provisions but to the nature of democratic politics in our country. It ensured that the spirit of federalism, respect for diversity and desire for living together became a common goal in our country. The major reasons in which federalism has succeeded in our country are as follows: – 1. Linguistic states: – The formation of linguistic states was the first major test for democratic politics in India. There were lots of changes in democratic politics of our country from 1947 to 2006. In India, many old states have vanished while many states have been created. Even the names of areas, boundaries and states were changed during this period. In 1947, the year of independence, the boundaries of many old states were changed in order to create new states. It was done to ensure that the people speaking same language should reside in same state. It led to formation of some states that were created not on the basis of language but to recognise differences based on culture, ethnicity or geography. It includes states like Nagaland, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand. There was fear of disintegration by some national leaders in our country when there was demand for the formation of states on the basis of language was raised. Earlier central government resisted linguistic states but the experience has shown that their formation has made country more united and integrated. It made administration procedure easier and opened doors of opportunities for everybody. 2. Language policy: – Our constitution has not given the status of national language to any one language. Language policy proved second major test for India federation and finally Hindi was identified as the official language of the country. Hindi, the official language of country proved to be mother tongue of only 40 percent of India and therefore there were many safeguards to protect other languages. Besides Hindi, constitution recognized 21 another languages as scheduled languages. All the states had their own official language and much of government work took place in the official language of the concerned states. Our leaders adopted a cautious and vigilant attitude in spreading the use of Hindi in India. According to Indian constitution, the usage of English for official use has to be stopped by 1965 but many non-Hindi speaking states resented it violently and wanted to continue with English. In Tamil Nadu, the movement took ugly turn as it turned into violent agitation. Thereafter, Central government responded positively and agreed to continue with usage of English along with Hindi for official purposes. But still Government of India continues to have encouraged the promotion of Hindi in their official policy. It does not mean that central government can impose Hindi on states where people speaks their own regional languages. 3. Centre State Relations: – The concept of federalism was strengthened to large extent by restructuring of centre and state governments relationships. It also largely depends on how the leaders of ruling party follow these arrangements. In India, the same party ruled both at the centre and at the most of the states. It means that the state governments did not exercise their rights as autonomous federal units. There were occasions where the parties at centre and state were different and in such cases central government tried to undermine the powers of state government. In those days, central government misused the constitution to dismiss the state governments that were governed by opposition parties. It undermined the spirit of federalism to large extent. After 1990, there was significant changes as the country saw the rise of regional parties in many states of the country. It was the arrival of the era of coalition governments at the centre. It led to new culture of power sharing and created a respect for the autonomy of state governments. This new trend was supported by a major judgment of Supreme Court that made difficult for Central government to dismiss state governments in an illogical manner. Federal power sharing holds more significance in today’s time than in early years when constitution came into force. Conclusion There are still other subjects that don’t fall in any of these lists. These subjects are computer software that came much after the formation of constitution in India. According to our constitution, Union government has the power to legislate on these left over or untapped subjects. Generally, it is learnt that holding together federations do not give equal power to its constituents so all states in Indian Union does not have identical powers. Jammu and Kashmir has its own constitution and enjoys special status and many provisions of Indian constitution are not applicable in this state. There are some units of Indian Union that enjoys very little power and these are areas which are too small to be recognized as an Independent state and could not merged with any other states. They are referred to as Union Territories and include areas like Chandigarh, Lakshadweep and Delhi, capital city of India. These territories do not have the powers of the state as Union or Central Government runs these areas with their special powers. It is not easy to make changes to the power sharing arrangements of Union and state governments as it has to be passed with both the houses of parliament with at least two-third majority. After its approval from both the houses of parliament, it has to be authorized or ratified by the legislatures of at least half of the total seats. In case of disputes about the division of powers, the High court and Supreme Court makes the decisive decision. Both Union and State governments have the power to raise resources by imposing taxes in order to carry on the government and the tasks allocated to them.

Moralitys Biological Nature - 2047 Words

Moralitys Biological Nature: Implications for the Attribution of Good and Evil. A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. . . . If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives. - Charles Darwin In my last paper Serial Killers: Just trying to feel normal, its not my fault (4) I addressed the question as to whether biology can make us murderers. In my paper I catalogued multiple instances in†¦show more content†¦These individuals may simply be impaired and hard-wired incorrectly, in such a way that they do not fall into a category of evil or wrong, but into a category of less wrong, and even unfortunate individuals who have been denied the ability to empathize with others and understand the inherently (and mandatory) intentional natures of good and evil behaviors. As science begins to unravel personality, accountability unravels with it. The person becomes his parts - some working, some defective through no fault of his own. (4) Morality is as firmly grounded in neurobiology as anything else we do or are, said de Waal (6). Morality must be seen as a state that is available to our species as a whole, and thus the biological impairment of not having morality would be seen as what allows us to throw off the drastic label of evil for he who has impairment. The idea that morality might be a biological trait in the human nature dates even back to the father of evolution. In The Descent of Man, Charles Darwin addressed the development of a moral sense from a naturalistic perspective (1). He implies that morality could have arisen as a consequence of human beings biological and social characteristics. This would imply that it isShow MoreRelatedKohlbergs Theory of Moral Development1236 Words   |  5 Pagessocial contract, which is ultimately the highest level of moral reasoning. This is evidenced in everyday life due to the fact the when pressed, individuals are incapable of providing evidence for any kind of unive rsal ethical value not explained by biological, physiological, or cultural evolution (which ultimately means that it is not in fact universal). Recognizing that the highest level of moral reasoning is based in the social contract is important for psychologists and the public alike, becauseRead MoreOrigins of Morality Essay1411 Words   |  6 Pagesdeveloped in the history of humanity. He returned to the very beginning when man lived in the state of nature. He said that man was generally good but not in a moral sense that we know today, probably in a way of usefulness that would benefit us for our survival. The savage did not possess an understanding and knowledge of morality; the ideas of â€Å"good or bad† were actually not inherent in their nature (Discourse on Inequality, pg. 68). His main concern was to survive through fulfilling his basic needsRead MoreFree Will, Nature, And Nurture3271 Words   |  14 Pages The Origins of Morality: How Nature, Nurture, and Especially Free Will Influence One’s Moral Framework Political Science 302 Free Will, Nature, and Nurture in Politics and Society March 16, 2015 Lindsey Macalalad When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individualsRead MoreMoralitys Foundations : Nurture Or Nature?1871 Words   |  8 PagesMorality’s Foundations: Nurture or Nature? The foundations of human morality have often been a point of contention in the scientific and psychological communities, with researchers frequently debating if human morals are innate sensations that are hardwired into one’s genetic makeup or that morals start out as a blank slate that are simply molded by the environment in which an individual was brought up. In recent times, we have seen a vast amount of scientific publications favoring both sides of