Family and marriage

Familyand marriage





Therole of scientific method in sociological research is to provide theboundaries and the limitations that focus on a research and organizeits findings. This role applies to both the quantitative andqualitative methods. Sociologists can make use of the scientificmethodology to collect, interpret and data analysis. The methodsapply both objectivity and scientific logic to maintain objectivity,consistency and focus in a particular area of study (TAROHMARU,2006).Thescientific method is concerned with the development and testing oftheories about the world usually based on empirical evidence. Themethodology is applied by its commitment to the systematicobservation of the empirical world and aims to be objective, logical,skeptical and critical. It also makes use of a series of steps thathave been established over a long period through a series of studies(TAROHMARU, 2006)&nbsp

Theuse of scientific methods is justified in marriage and family becauseas a sociological field, the findings of studies tend to provide uswith information that we did not have before which include knowledgeof rituals and beliefs, cultures, trends as well as attitudes.Sociologists in general, deal with questions concerning the role ofsocial characteristics, for instance, marriages and families. Itseeks to find out whether families and marriages are doing well interms of health, wealth, and cohesiveness (Vyain et al., n.d.).

Astudy was carried out using scientific methods on the effect ofguarantees universal income annually on the incentive to work andother social parameters. The study involved giving families aguaranteed annual income to ascertain whether that was going tochange the way they perform. The results, however, showed thatimprovement in performance was very minimal the explanation to thisis that as people receive more income, they would rather spend moretime with their families than continue working for higher returns(Vyain et al., n.d.)&nbsp.


Loveis defined as a strong affection for another person out of familyties or personal ties, sexual desires, tenderness and affection andaffections based on admiration, common interests as well asbenevolence. Infatuation, on the other hand, is defined by Americansas falling in love with someone or something for a short period.Friendship can be defined as a bond between individuals who havesimilar objectives and have a common destiny. The difference betweenthe three is that infatuation is a temporary passion towards someonewhereas love refers to a deep-rooted affection for that in most casescan last for a longer time. Friendship, on the other hand, is a bondthat brings together people with a common objective for a common good(Schwartz &amp Scott, 2012).

Thedefinition of love, infatuation and friendship vary according torace,class, gender, and sexual orientation. For instance definition oflove can vary depending on the gender in that love amongstindividuals of different genders tends to view love as beingintimate. Infatuation on the other hand amid race, is more pronouncedamongst the white Americans as compared to the blacks who believethat there is a thin line between infatuation and love and that thetwo cannot be separated.(Schwartz &amp Scott, 2012)&nbsp


Thestatement means that love is an act of God and that how we are allbrought up. It insinuates that one is predestined to only love oneperson at a time and would sometimes change when you realize that youno longer love the person. Love is random and is a result of a seriesof activities and events that make individuals fall in love. Thestatement can also be taken to mean that people come into one’slife with a purpose, whether it is for good or bad reasons. Love hasno known formula and is unpredictable so much so that one would fallin love in one moment and then realize that they had made a mistakethat they would want to reverse as soon as possible.

Inthe United States, there are a number of factors that individualsconsider when making decisions on which they meet, fall in love withand marry. These factors include the physical appearance of theindividual, their geographical location, personality values as wellas cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Studies have also shown thatindividuals are more inclined to selecting a partner for dating ormarriage in people they share the same traits with. This is what isknown as the similarity principle where two individual withsimilarity would usually perceive themselves the best suited and thattheir relationship is more likely to succeed.


Marriagein the current generation is different from the earlier generations.In the past, family values were respected. With the concept of singleparenthood and the increase in incidences of cohabitation, there isan increased likelihood that the number of people who are lessmotivated to get married. In my opinion, the recent trends have shownthat the institution of marriage is gradually becoming obsolete(Karpowitz &amp Pope, 2015).Thismeans that marriage will continue, but there will be differences inpatterns of marriage as the old ways become outdated and new waysemerging without having to do a marriage ceremony. Cohabitation hasfurther contributed to more people getting married at later stages oftheir lives compared to the phenomenon in the generations that camebefore us. The laws on marriages have changed a lot, and have allowedthe courts to deal with matrimonial issues, unlike the past wherereligious leaders would solve such issues (Strong et al, 2013).

Educationhas emerged as a factor that has changed hoe marriages took place inthe past. Education continues to delay the decisions of individualsto settle down as people prioritize education and financialstability, to establishing social ties. The economic difficultieshave also played in. In the past, one would comfortably cater for afamily of so many children within a polygamous setup. Parents alsohad enough time to pay attention to the huge families because of thefriendly economic situation(“Marriage and family,” 2016).This has, however, changed as people are concerned more with makingmoney than settling down to have a family. In the modern marriages,people live far apart from one another as they commit to theirworkplaces. It is also important to note that women in the currentgeneration equally seek opportunities sought by men as theyparticipate in economic activities. This is different compared to thepast where women had the sole role of caring for the family (Konner, 2010).


Therehas been a concern on the issue of assisted reproductive technologyas the cases of infertility increase and new technology becomingavailable. There is no consensus on what is ethical, but a hugeunregulated and profitable baby business is gradually expandingraising ethical as well as legal premises for dealing with the issue(Frith &amp Blyth, 2014).Inthe United States of America, legal loopholes and inconsistencies inthe regulatory frameworks exist and have been the source of divergentethical views. The explanation to this is that rapidly growingtechnological innovation coupled with the increasing demand has madeit an issue that is worth looking at (Callahan, 2013).Theother factor is the existence of conflicts in the society concerningtopics on sex and morality and issues such as stem- cell, abortionand contraception. Most societies are also faced with a dilemmabrought about by cultural changes (Vyain et al., n.d.).Thereis currently a consensus on the legality and morality of utilizingthe new technologies to limit, plan or even interrupt pregnancies.Opponents of assisted reproductive technology have argued that theconcept has been hijacked to sway people’s emotions towardsabortion.

Theconcept of assisted reproductive technology has assisted us to knowthat there are families that in one way or another are not in aposition to become parents in a natural and that the new technologyhas come in handy to solve their problems, albeit after the solvingof legal and ethical issues surrounding the new technology (Callahan, 2013)&nbsp.It is recommended that laws are enacted to provide parliament withthe ability to enforce guidelines towards dealing with the legalissues. A national coordination committee also needs to beestablished so as to provide advisory roles that are aimed atsafeguarding the interests of the patients, the family as well as thehealthcare professionals (Callahan, 2013).


Ayyar,A. (n.d.). Two views of passionate love: Why infatuation is betterexplained by the transference model than the evolutionary model.&nbspSSRNElectronic Journal.doi:10.2139/ssrn.2438139

Ba’,S. (2014). Parenting, play and the work-familyinteraction.&nbspSociologicalResearch Online,&nbsp19(2),. doi:10.5153/sro.3309

Callahan,S. (2013).&nbspTheethical challenges of the new reproductive technologies.Retrieved from

Cook,R. J., Dickens, B. M., &amp Fathalla, M. F. (2003).&nbspReproductivehealth and human rights: Integrating medicine, ethics, and law.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Frith,L., &amp Blyth, E. (2014). Assisted reproductive technology in theUSA: Is more regulation needed?ReproductiveBioMedicine Online,&nbsp29(4),516–523. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.06.018

Hill,K. (2012, May 18). The triangular theory of love. Retrieved October28, 2016, from


Konner,J. (2010, September 13). Grown-up love. Retrieved October 28, 2016,from

Marriageand family. (2016). Retrieved October 28, 2016, from

NCDpolicy areas. (2012). Retrieved October 28, 2016, from

Schwartz,M. A. A., &amp Scott, B. M. (2012).&nbspMarriagesand families: Diversity and change&nbsp(7thed.). Boston, MA, United States: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Strong,B., Cohen, T. F., &amp DeVault, C. (2013a).&nbspThemarriage and family experience: Intimate relationships in a changingsociety&nbsp(12thed.). United States: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Strong,B., Cohen, T. F., &amp DeVault, C. (2013b).&nbspThemarriage and family experience: Intimate relationships in a changingsociety&nbsp(12thed.). United States: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

TAROHMARU,H. (2006). Research on the development of sociological theory usingLaudan’s scientific philosophy of research traditions.&nbspJapaneseSociological Review,&nbsp57(1),41–57. doi:10.4057/jsr.57.41

Vyain,S., Scaramuzzo, G., Cody-Rydzewski, S., Griffiths, H., Strayer, E.,Keirns, N., … Little, W. Introduction to sociology – 1st Canadianedition. Retrieved October 27, 2016, from