Marriage has to be redefined in modern society. Do you agree?

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Marriage has to be redefined in modern society. Do you agree? by Mind Map: Marriage has to be redefined in modern society. Do you agree?

1. Compared to the past, people felt ashamed when they divorced, they treat divorce more objectively and are more open-minded now. People start to realize that divorce is just a way of pursuing happiness and correcting their wrong decisions about their marriage.

2. People are becoming more independent compared to the past. A lot of women did not dare to divorce because their husbands were their only financial support. However, women enter workforce nowadays and most of them can achieve financial independence. The increasing financial abiliity provides women with greater freedom in choosing to divorce when they are suffering from current marriage.

3. Marriage is not as stable as it was and a lifelong commitment becomes an unnecessity for marriage. Therefore marriage needs to be redefined to follow people's changing values.

3.1. You might want to suggest a new definition of marriage. E.g. instead of being a lifelong commitment, it should just be a temporary arrangement whereby the couple derives emotional, physical e.t.c. support from one another...Either party is free to walk out of the marriage if they no longer derive any pleasure from the marriage... These are just suggestions. you can come up with your own if you want.

4. Avoid "Since the days of yore" or "Since the beginning of time" beginnings. It is now quite cliché. There is a slight problem with your group's definition of a traditional marriage. It comes across as this: To be recognised as being married, a couple needs to 1) have children, 2) live in a stable environment... However this is not the case. There are married couples who can't bear children. Does that mean that they aren't married? You need to rephrase your wording. Also, you have to address what a traditional marriage is technically. How do different stakeholders view it? (e.g. religious bodies, law...). Is it a religious ceremony? Is it a social contract bound by the law? Who are the parties involved? What about the present? Nowadays, we see things like gay marriages, and common law marriages (where couples don't hold religious ceremonies and need not register their union with the government; they attain common law status when they can prove that they have been cohabiting with one another for a long time). Considering all of these, is the institution of marriage still valid today? Should we redefine marriage? If yes, how should we redefine it? You also need to define the word 'modern'.

5. Marriage does not need to be redefined as it is the important building block of every society in every country. By redefining marriage, we are encouraging families with no children, late marriages, and even short termed ones. With such a twist in the view of the society on marriage, the value of marriage will fall when people will take it lightly. Not only does this affect the population structure of the country. Take for example, with divorcing becoming a norm in the society, more and more couples try less hard to stay together and settle their issues in of court. In modern Singapore, 15 out of 78 marriages end up in divorce, which is partly why the fertility rate in the country is low at 1.2. These all give rise to economic problems such as higher taxation. At the same time, it also erodes the social and moral values the society stands for. In the Catholic faith, divorce is seen as improper and as the very last resort in any marriage, being only allowed in very special cases. However, by redefining marriages, the very value of it is reduced and people are more inclined to take up the 'divorce' method as a solution to any unhappiness in their marriage. As such, redefining marriages will only lead to less marriages in the long run.

5.1. Very well supported argument. What you can expand on is how social and moral values will be eroded. You have mentioned it, but have not elaborated on it. Also link your last sentence (reiteration) back to your topic sentence and the question.

6. Introduction: Since the days of yore, marriage has been extolled as one of the most divine and desirable part of human life. Though slightly different, the envisioned image of marriage has been similar across the world. Traditionally, marriage has been associated with children and stable living environment. However, many people nowadays start to question the assumption that a marriage must consist of children, togetherness and lifelong commitment. Yet, throughout the history, love remains the most cohesive force bonding a marriage. Hence, some assumptions about marriage should be redefined in the modern society, yet some values would remain relevant.

6.1. Counter-argument marriage does not need to be redefined as love and mutual respect are still essential components in marriage. People choose to start a marriage out of love between two people. Thus, love is still deemed as the most fundamental yet critical cornerstone to maintain a stable marriage. This is supported by a survey conducted by the Straits Times,which conveys the message that more than 80% of young people believe love is the most desirable and necessary part of a marriage. Moreover, with the emancipation of thoughts, people nowadays have been freed from the shackles of pre-arranged marriage. Greater freedom is bestowed upon them to make the marriage decision for their own.Therefore, true love has become the one and only goal for people in pursuit of marriage. Hence, the notion of marriage needs not to be redefined as the core value——love——has consistently remained relevant and desirable in people's consideration about marriage.

6.1.1. Slippery argument. It is simplistic to assume that marriages in the past were based on love and mutual respect. It may not be so. In more ancient or conservative societies, marriage was a way for kingdoms, families to secure political or economical benefits. Arranged marriages illustrate this. However, occurrence of such marriages has dropped in present times because people are more open-minded and individuals have more right to make their own decisions. People now marry more because of love (though there are some who still marry for economical benefit e.g. to attain PR status...).

7. Counter Arguement:

8. Marriage has to be redefined ascouples no longer have to live together. Elaboration: In the current world, couplesare less economically dependent on each other. The attraction of career sometimesbecomes larger than that of living together with the family. Therefore somecouples will live separately for career reasons. Also, modern communicationtechnologies allow couples to be emotionally dependent on each other even ifthey are far away, money is mobile in the current world, couples do not have toworry about one of them do not have enough money to spend as the other can supporthim/her by depositing money in to the bank and let him/her withdraw on theother side. However, in the past, due to the lack of long range communicationmethod, immobility of money and economic interdependence, couples are somewhatforced to live together Example: Statistics that shows there is a growingnumber of couples living separately to pursue their career.

8.1. Acceptable argument.

9. Marriage has to be redefined as it is no longer always a lifelong commitment. (Tao Ying)

9.1. One of the beliefs people held about marriage is that marriage should be a lifelong commitment between husband and wife and divorce was considered as unacceptable by both the partners and their family members.

9.1.1. Good. Marriage is traditionally seen as binding 'till death do us apart'.

9.2. For example, from the data provided by the institution of marriage in Singapore, over a 10-year-period, the general divorce rate nearly doubled from 3.8 per 1000 married resident females in 1980 to 7.6 in 2008.

10. Marriage has to be redefined as children are no longer a necessary part of a family. In retrospect, children had always been regarded as the paramount part of a family, especially in traditional Asian countries. Offspring were highly desired for workforce and carrying the family name. However, the situation has gradually changed over time. Nowadays, some couples decide not to have children due to various reasons, ranging from pursuit of career success to growing cost of living. This is supported by the constantly declining rate of fertility rate of 1.9. Furthermore, many couples no longer deem children as an indispensable part of a family but treasure quality time between two people more. Consequently, their mindset about marriage has changed. In light of this phenomenon, the definition of marriage has to be revised to downgrade the priority of having children in a family to meet the demands of modern couples.

10.1. This may not be a very valid argument. It stems from your previous definition of marriage where children is seen as a condition (see my comment in the introduction).

11. Do include your names beside your argument so I know who did what :)

12. New node