Going to the Chapel and We're

Gitangeli Sapra "I'm Happy with an Arranged Marriage" There are several differences in author Gitangeli Sapra's vision of the process of choosing a mate for an arranged marriage and my own approach to doing the same thing. In her essay entitled "I'm Happy with an Arranged Marriage," Sapra provides what largely functions as a point by point comparison between arranged marriages and those in which the initial impetus for marriage was largely the product of both people deciding to get married.

My own perspective on the subject is certainly at variance with the one provided by Sapra, and is based on consent on the part of both parties. After considering my viewpoint with that of Sapra, I believe that mine is superior. In the form of arranged marriages that Supra advocates, there is little opportunity for the prospective husband and wife to get to know one another prior to their union.

Marriages are largely the basis of reason and logic (and of familial politics, which should purportedly 'work out' both on paper and in real life). The following quotation demonstrates the fact that couples in arranged marriages have few chances to learn about each other prior to their marriage. "Number three did not open his mouth, his mother talked for him. I never actually saw prospective husband number eight: his mother preferred that I keep my gaze averted, Bollywood style" (Sapra 288).

This passage indicates that in Supra's vision, women are not allowed to look at the person that they are supposed to spend the rest of their life with, nor even hear the sound of their voices. However, I believe that for a union to have any sort of significance, one must like looking at the other person, as well as like the sound of their voices and the things that they say. Looks and conversation help to determine the sort of chemistry that can lead to truly lasting value.

Supra's method forsakes the chemistry between couples. My method values chemistry highly. One of the supposed benefits of Supra's method for getting married by a formal arrangement is that these marriages tend to last longer. Perhaps she sees something positive about situations in which one or both of the parties is unhappy in a marriage, and the same cultural norms that advocate an arranged marriage also do not permit divorces.

Regardless, the author notes in her article that "Even if Western middle class men are growing more faithful, as some experts suggest, 40% of "marriages made for love" still end in divorce. By contrast, the rate break-ups of arranged marriages in Asian communities is far lower" (Supra 288). There are several points of variance with this quotation and my stance on getting married, which involves traditional dating and consent on the part of both constituents.

What the author is citing as marriages "made for" love actually incorporates marriages founded on lust, money, status, and even additional situations in which there is societal or family pressure to marry someone. I advocate a marriage in which people unequivocally fall in love, in which they yearn for one another and are important to one another's lives whether they are married or not. This method transcends a piece of paper stating a commitment, regardless of rates of divorce or separation.

Lastly, Supra's method does not consider any point of fun in the process of marriage. It does not matter what those who are getting married think or want, let alone if they have any enjoyment in the process of their getting married (other than receiving gifts at their wedding). My method is considerably based on having fun with someone, enjoying their company, and ultimately having that person make the other person a better person.

This sort of process is rooted in enjoyment, intrigue, anticipation, and a host of other facets of basic human nature that Supra's method ignores (or perhaps is.