• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should The Government Be In The Marriage Business?

Should the Government be in the Marriage Business?

  • Yes, we need standards and structure or society will fall

    Votes: 12 30.0%

  • No, I know what's best for me. Government should serve as a register only

    Votes: 28 70.0%
  • Total voters
    40
ChezC3

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,458
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This shouldn't be viewed as a sign that you are for or against gay marriage, polygamy, etc. Only whether or not the government should be the arbiter in moral decisions involving who or what is to be considered a suitable partner(s)
 
It can kindly mind it's own business.
 
ChezC3 said:
This shouldn't be viewed as a sign that you are for or against gay marriage, polygamy, etc. Only whether or not the government should be the arbiter in moral decisions involving who or what is to be considered a suitable partner(s)
Click to expand...

The man issue is what about children that are outcomes of these marriages. There will need to be primary caretakers for said children. I most certainly do not trust the government to take care of them. Irregardless of what type there need to be both male and female roll models for the children. Anything else is just tort law and legal procedures that will take some time to determine.
 
ChezC3 said:
This shouldn't be viewed as a sign that you are for or against gay marriage, polygamy, etc. Only whether or not the government should be the arbiter in moral decisions involving who or what is to be considered a suitable partner(s)
Click to expand...

If I'm married in California, why shouldn't I have my marriage recognized in Maine? The government being involved in marriage (and the numerous benefits that go with it) renders that question moot.

Besides that, the problem is not whether government should be involved in marriage because of its judgment presiding over morality, but that it is presiding over morality at all. Remove that and you remove the problem.
 
Ikari said:
It can kindly mind it's own business.
Click to expand...

And yet, ironically, if you tell tell the Federal government to go mind its own business in this case, you give 50 more governments the right to mind your personal business.
 
Should the Government be in the Marriage Business?

Absolutely not. They should also not be 'ruling' over a citizens personal choices in life in regards to a lot of things. Unfortunately, Pandora's box has been opened and now it will be nigh impossible to un-bloat big brother government.
 
Shadow Serious said:
The man issue is what about children that are outcomes of these marriages. There will need to be primary caretakers for said children. I most certainly do not trust the government to take care of them. Irregardless of what type there need to be both male and female roll models for the children. Anything else is just tort law and legal procedures that will take some time to determine.
Click to expand...

I too agree that the traditional family is the best model to have for raising children to be productive, successful, and happy. Well, after reading what you wrote again you said "role model". That being said, were you speaking on the traditional family or just "role models"?

I absolutely agree that the government should be the last ones to take care of anything.
 
Cardinal said:
If I'm married in California, why shouldn't I have my marriage recognized in Maine? The government being involved in marriage (and the numerous benefits that go with it) renders that question moot.

Besides that, the problem is not whether government should be involved in marriage because of its judgment presiding over morality, but that it is presiding over morality at all. Remove that and you remove the problem.
Click to expand...

I don't care what level of government it is, it could be at any level with the guideline that you are merely registering your marriage like you would if you were setting up an LLC or the like.

Well, now here's the thing, let's take your argument to the next level.


the problem is not whether government should be involved in marriage because of its judgment presiding over morality, but that it is presiding over morality at all. Remove that and you remove the problem

What are laws? Codified morals? No? Throw in a dash of Authority with a pinch of punishment, and there's your government.

No presiding over morality no presiding at all.

Judging from the first part of your post and your political leaning, I'm gonna guess that's not where you want to go with this...
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Should the Government be in the Marriage Business?

Absolutely not. They should also not be 'ruling' over a citizens personal choices in life in regards to a lot of things. Unfortunately, Pandora's box has been opened and now it will be nigh impossible to un-bloat big brother government.
Click to expand...

I think putting the argument into the context I've presented would satisfy most on the Left and surely all but the social conservatives on the Right. They're a shrinking breed so, nigh might not be as far as think...
 
There's no way they can back out now, not after making it taxably fortuitous to be married.
 
no vote
again
too few oprions
Of course our government has to rule and control, that is its purpose
Society has shown that it is no where close to "standing on its two feet".
Too much of our society has four feet.
All marriages should be kept at a state level, but the states must work as a team; the feds can stay away.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is an institute of religion and should be kept in the churches.

Civil Unions are all that should be recognized by the government for tax purposes (that is for all couples regardless of orientation).
 
Shadow Serious said:
The man issue is what about children that are outcomes of these marriages. There will need to be primary caretakers for said children. I most certainly do not trust the government to take care of them. Irregardless of what type there need to be both male and female roll models for the children. Anything else is just tort law and legal procedures that will take some time to determine.
Click to expand...
In the past, IMO, our government has demonstrated a poor ability to care for children.
Now, IMO again, it is better, and probably a lot better than many "tax paying citizens".
 
AreteCourage said:
Marriage is an institute of religion and should be kept in the churches.

Civil Unions are all that should be recognized by the government for tax purposes (that is for all couples regardless of orientation).
Click to expand...

Marriage has been too many things in the past to paint it with one brush. It's been used to bring together tribes and families, to establish heirs, for religious reasons and for simply love. It's been government-recognized and non-government-recognized alike, and its nature has differed from culture to culture. It's a fluid, changing thing so using history to support your position only ends up hurting it.
 
ChezC3 said:
I don't care what level of government it is, it could be at any level with the guideline that you are merely registering your marriage like you would if you were setting up an LLC or the like.

Well, now here's the thing, let's take your argument to the next level.


the problem is not whether government should be involved in marriage because of its judgment presiding over morality, but that it is presiding over morality at all. Remove that and you remove the problem

What are laws? Codified morals? No? Throw in a dash of Authority with a pinch of punishment, and there's your government.

No presiding over morality no presiding at all.

Judging from the first part of your post and your political leaning, I'm gonna guess that's not where you want to go with this...
Click to expand...

Well, since you've brought motives into it (by weighing my post from my political lean), what's yours for removing government from marriage?
 
I have no problem with the government promoting and regulating marriage.

No, people should not be able to marry children.

No, marriage contracts that are unconscionable or against public policy should not be enforced.

Yes, there should be tax and other incentives for people to marry, because being married generally increases participants' emotional and financial stability.

Yes, the government should play a role in the dissolution of marriages, to make sure that the parties' expectations are honored, children are supported, etc.

Yes, sometimes distinctions should be made between married persons and unmarried persons in the distribution or allocation of federal benefits, where appropriate and practical.


My problem with the current state of affairs is simply that there are a few regulations that are irrational and discriminatory. Thankfully, the public and the courts are now recognizing this, and the issue will probably be resolved very soon.
 
ChezC3 said:
This shouldn't be viewed as a sign that you are for or against gay marriage, polygamy, etc. Only whether or not the government should be the arbiter in moral decisions involving who or what is to be considered a suitable partner(s)
Click to expand...

i think this is rediculous the problem is government shouldn't even know if you are or aren't married that should be between you god (or your god) and your spouse i am very opposed to homosexuality as an act not to the people as we are supposed to love the sinner and hate the sin but i am not going to vote for gay marriage to be outlawed because i don't want the gov. in anyones business
 
No. Marriages should be done by contract between two individuals. Be it between churches or whatever
 
All the government is today is a register, it says nothing about morality, where did you get the absurd idea that it does?
 
AreteCourage said:
Marriage is an institute of religion and should be kept in the churches.

Civil Unions are all that should be recognized by the government for tax purposes (that is for all couples regardless of orientation).
Click to expand...

Marriage has always been a secular institution, religion has tried to co-opt it but it hasn't been a primarily religious practice for a hell of a long time. You can walk down all the aisles in all the churches you want, you aren't really married until you get that piece of paper from the state.
 
I don't know about the marriage part, but the government sure does wanna be involved in the "honeymoon part"....
 
Of course there needs to be a legal distinction with regard to marriage. The same with family relations. Otherwise there's no way to standardize inheritance. Unless you libertarians want to have compulsory laws requiring people to keep a will the moment they turn 18. Otherwise there needs to be standardization.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, since you've brought motives into it (by weighing my post from my political lean), what's yours for removing government from marriage?
Click to expand...

I am a proponant of traditional marriage. I also am an advocate for liberty and freedom. This means that I will promote traditional family values but have no desire to impose those values over anyone who chooses to oppose or not agree with them. Because I don't agree with lifestyle choices of others doesn't mean that I should have a means to prevent others from living under a value system of their choosing.

Freedom and liberty for all means that people are going to do things you don't like. It isn't anyone's place to use "the machine of terror" to force people into conforming to someone else's value system.
should
This is why using the government as a database, a registry to uphold the marriage contract regarding inheritance, property etc, etc... is the only function I believe it should have.
 
eellis285 said:
i think this is rediculous the problem is government shouldn't even know if you are or aren't married that should be between you god (or your god) and your spouse i am very opposed to homosexuality as an act not to the people as we are supposed to love the sinner and hate the sin but i am not going to vote for gay marriage to be outlawed because i don't want the gov. in anyones business
Click to expand...

We seem to be on the same page, which leads me to wonder what you find so ridiculous?
 
Paschendale said:
Of course there needs to be a legal distinction with regard to marriage. The same with family relations. Otherwise there's no way to standardize inheritance. Unless you libertarians want to have compulsory laws requiring people to keep a will the moment they turn 18. Otherwise there needs to be standardization.
Click to expand...

That's where the registry part comes in.

Same laws would/could apply.
Doesn't matter the sex of the surviving spouse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom