Why wont i marry

Anyone who says that life is easy and fun has clearly not been living it long enough to realize that there are too many challenging and life-changing experiences that keep life as action packed as any good action movie or as emotional heart wrenching as a good tragedy story.  in fact, the marital bliss that is reflected in on-screen romances clearly comes from the perspective of some young idealist who has no idea just what it takes to keep a marriage going; a naïve perspective that fails to see that true happiness may actually exist outside of a marriage.  Catherine Newman’s position in her essay entitled, I do. Not. is not a pessimistic narration of a sad and tragic life but the introduction to a great life coming not from a woman liberalist but a once happily married woman who is now in a very healthy relationship.

It is easy to see just where the author is coming from given the recent data on marriage in today’s society.  In fact, in response to this, even the church has mandated marriage counseling to preserve this social institution called marriage.  Given that divorce rates all over the world have risen, there is a growing pressure from the more traditional and conservative sectors of society to impose mandatory marriage counseling.  The church has argued that by providing for mandatory marriage counseling the sanctity of marriage is preserved and in the long run the emotional development of not only newly weds but of their future children and families is also improved.  As such, it is clear that there is so much at stake with regard to marriage.

Catherine Newman jumps on this bandwagon and also presents her view on marriage, arguing that marriage is not crucial to having a happy and productive life.  Her thesis can be summarized as a statement against the practicality and necessity of marriage since it is nothing more than a social construct that burdens more than it alleviates.  This brief discourse shall explore the claim that in spite of some half-baked logic and familiar claims about the rarity of monogamy, Newman’s decision not to marry has little foundation in reason and logic. Instead, her wobbly arguments against marriage are merely pathetic rationalizations for her failed existence, which becomes more and more transparent as we read her unconvincing polemic. Instead of a convincing argument against marriage, what we are served is the failed life of the author, which consists of a woman imprisoned by sexual confusion, a control freak who finds a spineless man who will put up with her fear of love and commitment, a pseudo intellectual who hides behind specious academic arguments in order to justify her cowardly existence.

In order to effectively refute her arguments, it is important to first outline her claims.  Catherine Newman basically makes the following claims and arguments.  The first argument being that marriage is a tool of the patriarchy for the oppression of women.  Since marriage is a tool of the patriarchy, it would be cooperation on the part of women if they engage in marriage.  This act of self-betrayal is something that cannot be accepted and therefore women should not marry in protest to this.

At the onset, it is clear that there is no basis for such an assertion.  There is no substantial proof or evidence to show that marriage is a tool of the patriarchy to subjugate women.  In fact, it can be argued that marriage is emancipation for women since certain countries legally consider an individual as emancipated and no longer a minor at either the age of majority or at marriage.  As such, it cannot be effectively proven that marriage is a tool necessary for the dominance of men over women.  It must be submitted, however, that this may have been true in previous generations but this definitely cannot be the reality today.

The next argument that Newman makes is that marriage is tantamount to trafficking in women.  Once again, this generalization is nothing more than just an unsubstantiated claim.  As figures will show, marriage has never been used widely as a tool for trafficking in women.  From a practical perspective, marriage as a method of trafficking just does not hold any credence to it for the fact that there are so many other ways by which to commit the act.  It can even be argued that there is no marriage when it is used in trafficking in women because marriage necessitates the voluntary and willful submission of a person into a social contract.  From a realistic perspective, marriage is a covenant based on love and respect.  No true marriage exists if even one of the parties is using the marriage for his or her own selfish needs.  As such, it is clear that marriage is not trafficking in women, contrary to the opinion of Newman.

Catherine Newman makes the assertion that marriages mean that a women is the possession of a man.  She claims that marriages foster all sorts of arguments and make it difficult for normal social relations to work between the parties.  There is certainly some merit to that argument but it overlooks another crucial element that exists in stable marriages, the person factor.  Ultimately, the decision on whether or not a marriage is to work depends on how the parties relate to one another.  During the courtship or pre-marriage stages, the parties are more often than note more careful with the way they treat each other and relate with one another.  This causes problems later on in the marriage because as they become more comfortable with one another the natural behaviors and habits start to manifest themselves.

All this considered, there is still no valid justification as to why marriage is not even an alternative that is to be considered.  The choice of partner, or a poor one at that, in relation to the author’s choice in Michael, is not something that should be blamed on the institution of marriage.  In fact, there is no act that is more voluntary than that of marriage.  The essence of marriage is that it is entered into voluntarily and that only parties themselves have the right to decide for themselves if they are willing to get married or not.  It is this act that makes a marriage special.  It is not a bond that society or religion imposes upon its members.  It is a privilege given to those who have reached a different type of relationship and understanding with another person that is worthy of being celebrated.

Another argument that Newman makes that is a fallacy is the oversimplification in stating that there is no need for a marriage because a child can act as a substitute for marriage.  Aside from being contrary to all personal morals, this statement is fallacious because it equates a baby as a social contract similar to marriage.  A baby cannot be considered as a social contract for the fact that a baby is a human being.  If human beings were to be considered as social contracts and joint responsibilities, it would mean depreciate their status and objectify them.

The main fallacy from this statement is also borne out of the fact that Newman may have overlooked certain facts and figures regarding children born out of wedlock.  As studies have shown, those who have children after marriage tend to have several other children out of wedlock with other people.  There is also a higher incidence of juvenile problems and crime when the child grows up out of the institution of marriage.  Instead of arguing against marriage and its validity, the author makes a claim that also damages society by encouraging people to have children instead of getting married.

There are several instances of faulty logic that Catherine Newman makes in her article which will be enumerated and refuted hereafter.  She argues that wedding is nothing more than an expensive dowry.  She also makes the claim that marriage constitutes a betrayal to her friends in the gay community who are not legally allowed to marry.  She also makes the claim that marriage constricts her choices in life and that if she had a change in sexual preferences she should not be tied down by marital bonds.  She also argues that being with a partner everyday is more special because it means that the person selects you everyday instead of marriage which is only a single commitment made in a ceremony.

It is clear that these arguments all manifest a common error.  They are hasty generalizations not based on any solid or concrete proof.  One may even consider these arguments as being made with much passion and no basis.  The first few arguments suffer from faulty logic and analogy.  A marriage cannot be considered as an outward betrayal against the gay community.  It does not follow that if a person marries, he or she subscribes to the belief that members of the gay community cannot marry each other.  It is a fallacy to claim that by opting to marry one does not support the gay community.  This claim states that marriage, as an institution, is an affront against the rights of the gay community.  Marriage is a bond between two people who love and respect each other.  It is not an act of protest and neither is it a method of propaganda against the gay community.

Another faulty argument that is made, which is perhaps non-sequitour, is that she does not want to end up with a man who is overbearing and dotes over her all the time.  This argument does not advance any claim but rather expounds on her personal experiences and frustrations.  She further makes the mistake of arguing that marriage equates to possession.  Once a person is married, there is possession and ownership over the other.  It must be remembered that marriage is still a very solemn sacrament that creates a bond unlike any other in society and law.  The beauty and mystery of marriage is in how it unites two people together and allows them to not only exist as individuals but as a couple.  There is no part of marriage that mandates the relinquishing of one’s sovereignty.  There is no rule that requires that the other be the possession of another.

“To have and to hold, to love and to cherish,” as the oath goes, is something that Catherine Newman may not have realized.  It is unfortunate that some people enter into failed marriages and relationships.  This should not, however, be taken as a blanket license to erode the confidence of others in the sanctity of marriage.  The arguments that Catherine Newman made in her book are poorly substantiated claims that attempt to discredit marriage as a social institution.  While it properly shows her reasons for not marrying, it should be taken as a valid argument against marriage in as much as they are merely opinions of a person.  As such, marriage should be protected and the right of people to choose freely must be exercised.