Friday, December 10, 2010


Perception of a marriage has never been universal. In India for example it was believed to be a bond of seven lives. In the west it has been a contract that could be signed and broken. In either case, the marrying partners surrender some of their individual liberty. Marriage is culmination of evolution of human relations from disorganized society.

How different is ‘live in’ relationship from a marriage? May be there is less degree of social responsibility. But, I am not sure if this kind of relationship will be more stable than a marriage or it will give more liberty than a contracted marriage. It appears a retrogressive step than a progressive one. Nevertheless, some aims of a marriage are protected.

Some individuals do not bother about the fate of ‘Homo sapiens’ (human species) and think that a marriage is simply to fulfill their sexual needs. Consequently the definition of a marriage is different for them. Now there are marriages between men and men and also between women and women.

To me, a marriage is a life journey of two companions towards a goal that may be to raise children, to derive pleasure in doing good things together or fulfilling physical needs with peace, harmony and stability. It is an institution in the interest of human race. All other arrangements are marriages of convenience that can never be a substitute for a marriage.

1 comment: