Why Society Has To Change Its Views On Military Relationships

Why Society Has To Change Its Views On Military Relationships

Sometimes young people do make good decisions.
45
views

It's time that society changed its view on military relationships, specifically towards young adults. A number of my close friends are in relationships with people in the military, and I hear the things that people say to them for wanting to get married young or be committed with someone that can be halfway across the country for months at a time. Some comments are more disrespectful than others, for example, my roommate is engaged to a Marine and was told that she was stupid for getting into a committed relationship with someone who is most likely not going to live long enough to make it to their wedding day. Just the blatant disregard for the feelings of military spouses is unreal. Aren't we as a society the ones who support true love and making things work "for better or worse"? I just don't understand how people preach about real love and believe in real life love stories but then put down those who actually try to follow their hearts. Now, I understand that their are negatives to getting married young, but these people want to spend the rest of their lives with someone who isn't guaranteed a tomorrow. We can't harass them for wanting to marry someone that might not be alive a year from now. My friend once told me that she'd, "Rather be his widow forever than lose him and not have his last name to show for it." Can't we go easy on her, and people like her, for following her heart and marrying the person she loves?

Another comment that military girlfriends/wives (considering all of my friends are girls in relationships with military men), receive is, "Why don't you just wait?" There is a huge factor that these people are missing when they ask this question. Why not wait? Maybe because, like I said before, their significant others are not guaranteed a tomorrow. They could be deployed at any moment into a war zone and never come home. If we as a society believe in love we can't blame them for wanting to make the best of the time they have together. So what if they are 19 or 20 getting married? 50 years ago this wouldn't have even been an issue. This generation of millennials has been proven to push back commitment and focus on themselves but that doesn't mean that people who stay committed are wrong for doing so. Just because they are married young doesn't mean they can't still have a life. My roommate is going to school, has a job, has her goals and a long list of accomplishments, is the most independent person I know and her fiance is nothing but supportive of her. They have a strong, healthy relationship and it really is irritating to see people try to break them apart because of their age. Yes they are young, but they aren't dumb. And I know that every story is different and that some people in military relationships get married for the wrong reasons and it doesn't work out, but why punish and degrade those who are staying committed for the right reasons based on a few bad examples?

These people have it hard enough as it is, not knowing whether their spouse will return home everyday, not being able to see or talk to them for periods of time, so why do we shower them with negativity as a society? There is such a thing as constructive criticism. Saying something negative and disrespectful is not going to help the situation in anyway. Being supportive while also expressing some negative things that may come from young marriage to a military person is what we as a society should be doing. After all, we are the biggest believers in true love and fairy tales. Not everything young adults do is horrible and life-ruining. So showing a little positivity towards the young people involved in military partnerships isn't that far out of reach.

You don't see the struggles they go through for love and what they put themselves through. All you see is a naive young person making a dumb decision, but what if that's not actually the case? What if they actually planned every last detail and went over the pros and cons in their head countless times to figure out if this is truly what they wanted? What if they asked themselves whether they were ready to face society's negative opinions and stereotypes or keep their thoughts and love to themselves because it may be too much to handle? I admire each and every one of them for following their hearts and overcoming society's stereotypes and negative interpretations of their choices.

Cover Image Credit: Nichole Bishland

Popular Right Now

As A Female Christian Millennial, I Fully Support Alabama's Abortion Ban Because I Know God Would, Too

A life always has worth, no matter the circumstances.

11881
views

Alabama's state legislature passed a bill on May 14, 2019 that makes it illegal for abortions to be performed past six weeks of pregnancy. Doctors who are caught violating the law could be sentenced up to 99 years in prison. The bill is the strictest anti-abortion bill to date this year as states try to pass laws to challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

While the law does allow an exception to women whose lives are at risks, it does not allow for abortions in the event of rape or incest. I support Alabama's new law, and I applaud them for their efforts to protect the rights of unborn children.

As a Christian, I believe that life is a precious gift from God and should be treated with care.

The sixth commandment is, "Thou shalt not kill," and Jesus said the second greatest rule was to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39-40). I believe this applies to every person born and unborn. But, even from a secular perspective, there are reasons that support an unborn child's right to life. Let's break down two of the most important components of the bill: abortion itself and the case of rape and incest.

A big argument in the debate is whether a baby is alive before it is born or only after it is born.

I believe can be explained and answered with simple medical science. In the medical profession, a person is pronounced dead when there is no more activity in the brain, known as brain-dead.

At that point, they consider there to be no more life in the body.

The opposite of death is life, so if you have electrical signals still coursing through your brain, then you are alive. A fetus begins to have electrical activity in its brain at six weeks. Most women do not find out they are pregnant until around that time, so by the time they decide to have an abortion, the baby, by all medical accounts, is alive.

Another indicator of whether a person is dead or dying is their pulse.

The pulse is how many times a person's heart beats per minute. If a person does not have a pulse, they will more than likely die if their heart cannot be resuscitated because no oxygen is getting to their brain.

Medical personnel does everything they can to start a person's heart back because they know that the heart is key to life.

A baby's heart begins to beat at five weeks old, again before the mother knows she is pregnant and can choose to have an abortion. Since the United States' justice system upholds that killing a person is wrong, then shouldn't killing a baby, who is alive, be wrong too? I think this is plenty of proof that aborting a baby is killing a living person and is therefore wrong.

Rape and incest are two horrible acts that should be punished. It is never the victim's or conceived a child's fault in the situation.

Given the reasons above for why abortion is wrong, I also believe, while both crimes are horrendous, that abortion is still not the answer to this problem. I do understand, however, that women, because of the traumatic experience or other reasons, may not be able to care for the child.

As such, I am an advocate for adoption.

There are many couples out there who cannot have children on their own who would love to adopt. In order, for this to be a viable option, though, Congress needs to make amendments to adoption laws.

Adoption is outrageously expensive, much more costly than an abortion, and is a long and tedious process.

Though the laws are in place so that not just anybody can adopt a child, the government still could stand to relax laws a little. Another option could be to offer aid to those who wish to adopt specifically to cover adoption expenses or to only those who meet certain requirements. If we want to protect unborn children, we must give women and families more viable options.

I know that my views are not popular, but God did not call us to be popular, He called us to be His disciples.

I will not compromise my convictions because I am in the minority. I support the women who have to face this dilemma, and I pray that they and our government officials make the right decisions and aid these women and families in need of help.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

We're All Thinking It, I'm Saying It: Too Many People Are Running For President

I'm all for options, but man, do we really need 24? I mean, I can barely pick a flavor of ice cream at Baskin Robbins let alone a potential President.

50
views

There are, currently, 23 Democrats running for President. On the Republican side, there's, of course, Trump, but only one other candidate, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld. Democrats have a whole range of people running, from senators to congressmen, a former vice-president, and even a spiritual advisor. We can now say that there are DOZENS of people running for President in 2020.

Joe Biden has been leading the pack for quite some time now. He was even leading polls before he announced his campaign. Although he is the frontrunner, there really is no big favorite to win the nomination. Biden has been hovering around the mid-30s in most polls, with Bernie Sanders coming in second. Other minor candidates in the hunt are Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris.

After the surprising defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016, Democrats have become electrified and have a mission to take back the White House after winning back the House of Representatives in 2018. There are so many people running in 2020, it seems that it will be hard to focus on who is saying what and why someone believes in something, but in the end, there can only be one candidate. This is the most diverse group of candidates ever, several women are running, people of color, the first out gay candidate, and several more.

There could be a problem when it comes to debate time. I mean, the first debate is next month. Having around 20-plus people on stage at the same time, debating each other kinda sounds like a nightmare. How can someone get their point across in the right amount of time when someone else is going to cut them off? Debates are usually around an hour and a half. So, if you divide it up, each candidate would get just under five minutes to speak. That would be in a perfect world of course.

Democrats seriously believe that they can beat Trump in 2020. They say they have learned from the mistakes of 2016, and have the guts and the momentum to storm back into the White House. By July of next year, there will be only one candidate left. Will they be able to reconcile the divide during the primaries? We will see. It will surely be a fun election cycle, so make sure to have your popcorn ready and your ballot at hand to pick your favorite candidate, no matter what party you lean towards.

Related Content

Facebook Comments