Final Essay
Being Single Is Better Single life has become a popular trend in many people’s future choices. Some studies showed that “for some, "healthy, wealthy and single" has become a mantra for the 21st Century. It implies happiness, and even smug satisfaction, at being unattached” (Smith, 2013). In comparison with the past when marriage was generally a compulsory event of each person, whereas today it is not true, people also consider to live alone because of many fantastic things from this kind of living (Wallen, n.d.). For examples, single people are healthier, they have more social relationships and even they don’t have to worry too much about chores and money. Actually, being single is better than being married.
There is an large number of single people who have a healthier life. For instance, research revealed that divorced people exercise more than married people, but not as much as the people who have always been single (DePaulo, 2014). It also seems that when people get married, they not only gain a spouse, they also gain a considerable amount of weight (Realbuzz, n.d.). So, with a single life, people can have a higher quality of health with many benefits. And that is why being single helps you live healthier than being married.
Single people are more likely to have a more social life than married people. It is no doubt that a person will spend less time socializing after marriage or in other words, marriage resulted in less contact with parents and friends
Marital status may affect your happiness if you are happy by the things that status may bring you, whether that is the things you benefit from not being in a relationship or the things you get from being in a relationship. This is shown through the Price family relationships. From the separation of Orleanna and Nathan, Adah staying single, Rachel going through multiple marriages and Leah having four kids and a husband who was imprisoned. Through the relationships in The Poisonwood Bible we can see the different causes of happiness and some of them being objects, hobbies and the relationship itself. Marital status should only affect one’s happiness unless that is what someone is involved in all the time.
In Anthem Equality 7-2521 discovers how men shouldn’t be alone. Rand states “The laws say that none among men may be alone ever and at any time, for this us the great transgression and the root of all evil”. (Rand 17) This quote expresses how men should have a relation to a partner because it is wrong for men to be alone. In other hand in Harrison Bergeron they have families but the children are taken away.
230) – a field of research that links living alone with “the rise of loneliness, the collapse of civil society, and the demise of the common good” (p. 230). In defense of singletons, the author sets out to debunk these misleading myths surrounding a progressively autonomous nation of individuals, and points towards solutions in the form of government and social welfare policies that act as a safety net for this growing demographic. He reasons that this is an irreversible demographic shift that must be embraced, as society celebrates “the emergence of the individual, the rising status of women, the growth of cities, the development of communications technologies, and the expansion of the life course” (p.
In “The Pursuit of Happiness: Characteristics of Happy People” R. Murali Krishna states that usually, a survey shows “married people are usually happier than unmarried people” (Krishna). Something to clear up is if you are married it doesn't necessarily mean that you will be happy. Marriage is a huge commitment. There are lots of ups and downs to add on. It'll be a different experience for everyone.
Bria S Grissom SOC1001 M/W 6pm 1. Families are relationships of people who live together and care for any young children, if any, and think of each other as one unit. Sociologists believe families are essential to the growth of children and are the most significant because growth starts from the home and even before children are born; the family is prepping for the arrival of their new baby. The way a child is raised will greatly determine the kind of individual the child will grow up to be, and although other outside factors, such as school and work, may have an impression, the impact is not as strong as the family. Traditional nuclear families are anything but [traditional] these days.
The lack of love in the society does not allow people to be happy. Getting married is often considered one of the best and happiest days of a person’s life. This great moment will never happen for the people who live in this society because they are not allowed to love someone. Once Equality and Liberty leave society, they find a house that makes them happiest they have ever been and they say “we shall never leave this house nor let it be taken from us” (91). They plan on living in the house for the rest of their life and starting a family.
For example, mothers continue having children out of wedlock to increase the amount of money and benefits they received from welfare programs. Marriage is one of the two most important factors contributing to personal happiness. Marriage is also a very strong factor in promoting the upward mobility of children (Rector, 2006). Marriage is the greatest protector against child poverty. Children born to a married mother and father are about 80 percent less likely to be poor compared to children in single-parent homes.
Though he, again, fails to inform the readers of who performed the study or what type of study it was, the author does quote it saying that, “[the] study found that 78 percent of Americans believed that singletons are “disadvantageous””(226). The author then uses this information to back up his claim that although Americans had a bad outlook on only children in the past, now “singletons, at last, are getting a break” (226). Because he neglects to sufficiently inform the audience about the studies, the information Kluger does include seems vague and only included to support his claim. Though the studies used in this case are not detailed enough to prove Kluger’s claim, Kluger does a good job of supporting most of the material included in this
Being a moral scold about the fecklessness of a single mom, one who cannot adequately provide for the needs of a child, doesn’t do anything to solve the problem. (Not to mention my mantra: she didn’t do it all by herself.) We are sailing into the unexplored territory of couple-hood. Notwithstanding the lessons taught by Frank Sinatra in the once popular ode to “Love and Marriage,” it turns out he was wrong: you can have one (love) without the other (marriage).
People have conflicting views on the benefits and negatives of relationships. Some individuals believe that relationships can have a positive impact on one’s life, while others believe that they are unnecessary to living a successful life. Almost everyone has unique experiences with a relationship but can alter their lives in one way or another. Ernest Hemmingway’s, In Our Time demonstrates how relationships cause damage to one’s wellbeing and those close to him or her.
The fact that humans cannot live by their own without social intercourse entails the individuals’ need for affectionate bonds, including biological ties with family members and emotional attachment with friends. It is suggested that the desire to pursue such intimate relationship are naturally driven by oneself to fulfill his psychological needs and lead them to attain a meaningful life (Ryff, 1989). Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism also claims that deep friendship is one of the higher pleasures that human requires to experience true happiness. In our lives, we often hear people feeling unhappy, although they obtain a great amount of wealth and power because they lose their family and friends in the process of acquiring these aspirations.
Divorce is categorized as the greatest threat to marriage since this occurrence is likely to destroy the quality as well as steadiness of families and children globally. Even though the divorce number has rapidly increased in the United States and globally, it is worth noting that the number of married couples and children that are growing up in complete families is also on the rise than when compared to the period of divorce revolution. Cohabitation is one of the underrated marriage threat in the modern society. This is because most individuals live together not just because they are a part of each other but mainly because they are focused on reducing their life struggles as well as raising their children (Evans,
According to this theory, nature of love is changing fundamentally and it can create either opportunities for democracy or chaos in life (Beck & Beck- Gernsheim, 1995). Love, family and personal freedom are three key elements in this theory. This theory states that the guidelines, rules and traditions which used to rule personal relationships have changed. “Individuals are now confronted with an endless series of choices as part of constructing, adjusting, improving or dissolving the unions they form with others” (Giddens, 2006). For instance, marriage nowadays depends on the willingness of the couples rather than for economic purposes or the urge to form family.
Is there really a need to be married anymore? Does marriage actually benefit your relationship, or is it an outdated institution that we’ll be better off without? In this speech, I’ll convince you that marriage is a thing of the past, and that society’s views on marriage have changed enough in the past decade that marriage really isn’t necessary anymore. One of the main purposes of marriage is to maintain a permanent relationship, but nowadays marriage doesn’t lead to a permanent relationship due to the increase of divorce rates.
The article’s purpose is to pinpoint specific cultural traits that cause problems in modern relationships. It dives into the history of marriage to illustrate that our modern views on marriage and love are new and specific to the twentieth century. Cultural shifts in our individualistic tendencies are responsible for some of the problems marriages face today. The article poses the underlying idea that perhaps society’s individualistic nature is too self-centered to the point that we push out other’s needs, feelings, and happiness. 4.