• 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 we do away with marriage as a legal status?

Should we do away with marriage as a legal status?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 20 45.5%

  • No.

    Votes: 23 52.3%

  • Knibb High football rules!

    Votes: 1 2.3%
  • Total voters
    44
Peter Grimm said:
Then you can co-own it like you would co-own something with a roommate. You own the percentage of what you put in.

So because people are incapable of looking after their own interests, we need the government to come in and play daddy? Sorry, I can't get on board with that logic.
Click to expand...

And many who own something with their roommates still have to go to civil court to determine its worth and how it will be worked out.

Again, you are living in this fantasy world where things do not happen in accordance with your ideal belief.

The reason we have civil courts is because the government is needed to solve disputes. That is the absolute purpose of civil courts and it has been working for a long time.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Of course. Being married is a special legal class in America today, complete with tax benefits and everything. Of course you like the cushy life at the expense of others. I probably would too.
Click to expand...

Or tax liabilities. The Congressional Budget Committee did a study on this that showed that legalizing same sex marriage would most likely increase tax income, not decrease it. Those tax benefits are not what many seem to believe they are. Individual couples may benefit, but then more couples are harmed or don't really have a difference in their taxes. And being married could mean a couple is less likely to get government assistance because of their joint incomes rather than just one income.

There is no "at the expense of others". You want to make this claim, then prove it with real evidence, real numbers, real studies that show this, not just your beliefs or assumptions.
 
roguenuke said:
And many who own something with their roommates still have to go to civil court to determine its worth and how it will be worked out.

Again, you are living in this fantasy world where things do not happen in accordance with your ideal belief.

The reason we have civil courts is because the government is needed to solve disputes. That is the absolute purpose of civil courts and it has been working for a long time.
Click to expand...


I don't think I ever suggested eliminating civil courts, I've just suggested ways of making things a lot simpler by making them more black-and-white. The current system is broken, it needs re-adjustment.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Well then be married, but why does it need to be a government-issued license and a legal status?

Legally, you should be treated as an individual.
Click to expand...

Legally, each spouse is treated as an individual. Just as each sibling is treated as an individual, even though they get some benefits for being siblings.
 
roguenuke said:
Or tax liabilities. The Congressional Budget Committee did a study on this that showed that legalizing same sex marriage would most likely increase tax income, not decrease it. Those tax benefits are not what many seem to believe they are. Individual couples may benefit, but then more couples are harmed or don't really have a difference in their taxes. And being married could mean a couple is less likely to get government assistance because of their joint incomes rather than just one income.

There is no "at the expense of others". You want to make this claim, then prove it with real evidence, real numbers, real studies that show this, not just your beliefs or assumptions.
Click to expand...

I don't believe a word the Congressional Budget Committee says, sorry. Nor am I really all that interested in gay marriage or gay politics in general.

And yes, if you get a tax break whereas I don't, then you're getting it at my expense. I'm paying more taxes relative to my income than a married person. Thus, I'm subsidizing marriage, in a way.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I don't think I ever suggested eliminating civil courts, I've just suggested ways of making things a lot simpler by making them more black-and-white. The current system is broken, it needs re-adjustment.
Click to expand...

It is very efficient as it is. What you are suggesting would not likely make anything "black and white" but rather many more shades of grey because you would have so many different situations pop up where people want the government to help them with no laws to streamline them.

The current system is not "broken" at all. It works just fine, as far as the logistics go. It simply needs some tweaking with the fairness of it being available to more couples.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I don't believe a word the Congressional Budget Committee says, sorry.

And yes, if you get a tax break whereas I don't, then you're getting it at my expense. I'm paying more taxes relative to my income than a married person. Thus, I'm subsidizing marriage, in a way.
Click to expand...

And some couples pay more. And many people get that same tax break for simply taking care of a family member, like I did when I was single.

You aren't subsidizing marriage. If you think you are, prove it. Show the actual numbers and exactly how, taking into account every variable. Go for it. You made the claim, you back it up.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Well, what am I missing here.

More work to do means there would need to be more people and resources allocated to do that work.

That, and the sky is blue, and grass tends to be green.
Click to expand...

Great. Get back to us when you find something meaningful to support that.
 
Yes, get the government out of the marriage business completely. Marriage is a religious thing or social tradition if you will. The government should have no role in the affair at all.
 
Quik said:
Yes, get the government out of the marriage business completely. Marriage is a religious thing or social tradition if you will. The government should have no role in the affair at all.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be married by a government official if you don't want to. If you want only a religious service then get married in your church. No one is holding a gun to your head.
 
roguenuke said:
And some couples pay more. And many people get that same tax break for simply taking care of a family member, like I did when I was single.

You aren't subsidizing marriage. If you think you are, prove it. Show the actual numbers and exactly how, taking into account every variable. Go for it. You made the claim, you back it up.
Click to expand...


7 Tax Advantages of Getting Married - TurboTax® Tax Tips & Videos

10 Ways Getting Married Affects Your Taxes - H&R Block | Block Talk - The H&R Block Official Corporate Blog

How marriage impacts your taxes
 
Peter Grimm said:
Blue Sky - Why is the Sky Blue?
Click to expand...

Well, see that's just the problem. Your personal "the sky is blue" comments in your personal life are what we call "unsubstantiated claims" on a debate forum. You can't pull a fact out of your butt just because it's convenient to your position. You claim that the government is burdened by work because of marriage. I've never heard of this being an issue so I'm going to need you to substantiate that claim.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm not sure you understand what "subsidizing" means. A married couple getting a tax break is not equal to you subsidizing their marriage.
Click to expand...

Let's say all the revenue the government needs to operate is a pizza. Every person puts in a little slice, and you end up with a whole pizza.

Well, if someone is putting a little smaller slice in because they're married, that means someone else is going to have to put in a little bit more, so we end up with the whole pizza.

Let me know if I need to slow down.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, see that's just the problem. Your personal "the sky is blue" comments in your personal life are we call "unsubstantiated claims" on a debate forum. You can't pull a fact out of your butt just because it's convenient to your position. You claim that the government is burdened by work because of marriage. I've never heard of this being an issue so I'm going to need you to substantiate that claim.
Click to expand...

We all have needs. Funny thing.
 
Cardinal said:
You don't have to be married by a government official if you don't want to. If you want only a religious service then get married in your church. No one is holding a gun to your head.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether I should move forward and assume that you are totally ignorant of the subject or try to explain how the government is still involved in the marriage business under your scenario.
 
Cardinal said:
Okay, so you can't back up your claim. I do not find this very surprising.
Click to expand...

Your request is just so silly, but I will try to answer you, OK?

There has never been a study done to assess the true cost to government of administrating marriage. That doesn't mean the cost isn't there, it just means nobody has bothered to look at it.

Likewise, there has never been a study done to substantiate whether the sky is, in fact, blue.

However, if you use a bit of common sense, it is hardly a stretch to assume that the more work you ask the government to do on our behalf, the more resources they will need to expend to complete that work.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Your request is just so silly, but I will try to answer you, OK?

There has never been a study done to assess the true cost to government of administrating marriage.
Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't be making statements on what the level of that cost is.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Let's say all the revenue the government needs to operate is a pizza. Every person puts in a little slice, and you end up with a whole pizza.

Well, if someone is putting a little smaller slice in because they're married, that means someone else is going to have to put in a little bit more, so we end up with the whole pizza.

Let me know if I need to slow down.
Click to expand...

Right, that's still not actually "subsidizing." That would be to support financially, as in the government actually handing money to the married couple. In any case, what is your increased burden because of a married couple's tax break. Can you quantify it?
 
Quik said:
I'm not sure whether I should move forward and assume that you are totally ignorant of the subject or try to explain how the government is still involved in the marriage business under your scenario.
Click to expand...

And I'm not sure what you want. If you don't want government in marriage, then you are free not participate in that institution.
 
Cardinal said:
And I'm not sure what you want. If you don't want government in marriage, then you are free not participate in that institution.
Click to expand...

So if I don't participate in that institution that means the government is no longer involved in the marriage business? Failure in logic.
 
Quik said:
So if I don't participate in that institution that means the government is no longer involved in the marriage business? Failure in logic.
Click to expand...

It's certainly not involved in your marriage business. Genuinely curious: do you receive a certificate of any kind if you've been married in your church? If so (I assume the ceremony carries with it some notable significance), why shouldn't that be enough for you?
 
Cardinal said:
Right, that's still not actually "subsidizing." That would be to support financially, as in the government actually handing money to the married couple. In any case, what is your increased burden because of a married couple's tax break. Can you quantify it?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's very easy to quantify. It's the total amount of the tax write-offs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom