• 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
1) What if it's not on the birth certificate?
2) See previous issue of custody
3) They are both issues.
4) Yes it is.
5) I agree as well, we should abolish legal marriage
6) Incorrect, the opposite is true
7) Only in your fantasy land, not in reality.

1.) then you go to court to file, why on earth would your name not be there if you are married LMAO
2.) no issue file for custody
3.) no they are sperate
4.) nope not required this is a lie
5.) nope legal marriage is fine
6.) facts and this very thread prove oyu wrong
7.) and based on facts
LMAO

again i simply ask you, if you disagree just prove me wrong, why do you keep dodging this?

please list the facts that prove you are FORCED to marry.
 
The government should not be involved in the marriage business at all.
You're a few centuries too late for that sentiment. It's already installed in not only America common law but English common law, on which a lot of America civil law is based.

But like I've already stated, you have to option to do the same things with your own contracts - knock yourself out.
 
Last edited:
The government should not be involved in the marriage business at all.

You know, if you wanted to just default to the OP's opening argument you could always start reading the thread from beginning.
 
Government does not own marriage either. People own marriage, and as such they should be in charge of it.

They are. The government is the people in the US. I realize that some don't want to accept this, but it is true.

But without getting into that, we need marriage. It is an efficient contract. The government really has very little say over it at all.
 
Good point. I'm sure homes of married parents who stay married "for the kids" churn out rocket scientists and emotionally perfect adults.

They are much more likely to want to try to work on the relationship if they are married than if they aren't. There is always the option of getting out of marriage, but with the extra financial "compromises" that come with a legal divorce, it makes people more willing to work on their problems than if they are simply living together.
 
That's the key word. The government has created a situation in which I am forced to use their services. If their services did not exist, I wouldn't require them.

You would require something that would be much more complicated and require a lot more paperwork.
 

All state very clearly that some marriages benefit people, others harm them, and most pretty much pay the same either way. Maybe you should read those.

I didn't ask for vague statements of what might happen. I asked you to prove that you pay/subsidize marriages through numbers, and all the variables, including welfare, taxes, civil suits with and without marriage (real life, not your "ideal"), medical/dental insurance (such as for government employees) and how offering it or not to spouses, significant others, or none would affect our real life healthcare costs, and anything else that marriage affects within the laws and especially our country's finances. I realize this is huge, which is why I ask for it, because I believe you aren't considering everything marriage actually does. You don't even realize that most of those "tax benefits" are balanced by others who pay extra taxes because of their marriages, and most don't see a difference at all from marriage.
 
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.

You haven't proven that any couple, let alone most couples, are putting in a "smaller slice" by being married. You provided nothing but your own unsubstantiated assumptions.
 
They are. The government is the people in the US. I realize that some don't want to accept this, but it is true.

I don't accept it because its not true. The government is the body the rules over the people.

But without getting into that, we need marriage. It is an efficient contract. The government really has very little say over it at all.

Is is their contract and such it follows their terms. Unless you go with religious marriage the government is in complete control over the situation.
 
I don't accept it because its not true. The government is the body the rules over the people.
And who decides who constitutes that body?


Is is their contract and such it follows their terms. Unless you go with religious marriage the government is in complete control over the situation.
For someone who often talks of knowing law you don't seem to - unless you're calling civil court "the government" as well.
 
Yes, that's very easy to quantify. It's the total amount of the tax write-offs.

No it's not. Plenty of things people can writeoff on their taxes, such as children, schooling, donations, energy efficiency, losses, and lots of other things. And you haven't proven that most married people pay less in taxes because of marriage.
 
Because I still have to go to the government in order to "validate" the marriage for insurance purposes, legal purposes, etc. Why do I have to explain this to you? Are you seriously unable to understand why/how the government is still involved? What is wrong with you?

You can find many companies that will provide insurance for your significant other without legal marriage. You can also get legal paperwork to have to cover "legal issues". How else would you do this without the government? Wouldn't you still need paperwork? Pretty sure you would and it would be a lot more paperwork that you would need.
 
I don't accept it because its not true. The government is the body the rules over the people.

Is is their contract and such it follows their terms. Unless you go with religious marriage the government is in complete control over the situation.

Really? How does the government control my marriage in a way that they wouldn't if they weren't involved? Do they force couples to divorce? Do they change people to not love the person they are married to? Are they setting up marriages? Are they dictating to couples why they must stay together or when they must get a divorce, related to the personal choices of the couple?
 
You can find many companies that will provide insurance for your significant other without legal marriage. You can also get legal paperwork to have to cover "legal issues". How else would you do this without the government? Wouldn't you still need paperwork? Pretty sure you would and it would be a lot more paperwork that you would need.
In fact, my wife and I got automotive insurance as a married couple several years before we were married. We lived together, had two jointly-owned cars, and an understanding insurance agent. That was 1986. :)
 
In fact, my wife and I got automotive insurance as a married couple several years before we were married. We lived together, had two jointly-owned cars, and an understanding insurance agent. That was 1986. :)

I just don't understand how some people can view marriage as it is now as worse than it would be if there was no "marriage license". It is the most efficient and convenient contract on the planet. One legal paper that takes the place of dozens or more for the vast majority of couples. Saves couples so much money in so many ways for very little cost to the rest of the people. In fact, it benefits other people too. It's a win/win.
 
I just don't understand how some people can view marriage as it is now as worse than it would be if there was no "marriage license". It is the most efficient and convenient contract on the planet. One legal paper that takes the place of dozens or more for the vast majority of couples. Saves couples so much money in so many ways for very little cost to the rest of the people. In fact, it benefits other people too. It's a win/win.
I don't understand it, either. I've always calculated our taxes both ways and it's pretty much the same either way. Sure we get some breaks like insurance and stuff - but obviously that doesn't cost anyone else more money since insurance companies aren't known for charity. ;) All the rest is just common law, most of which has been around for centuries.
 
they dont tell you
that make it legal and protect that joint ownership

Sure they tell you. That's what this is all about, whether or not they should stop. Governments don't have to make joint ownership legal, it's legal anyway. You and I can buy a house right now and make a contract declaring joint ownership. What you're talking about the financial incentives that the government offers for the joint ownership of property to be between a husband and wife rather than two guys who are just chatting on some internet forums.

Except then you go on to say that such incentives aren't actually incentives and start being rude to the guy who politely pointed out the obvious fallacy in your logic.
 
Sure they tell you. That's what this is all about, whether or not they should stop. Governments don't have to make joint ownership legal, it's legal anyway. You and I can buy a house right now and make a contract declaring joint ownership. What you're talking about the financial incentives that the government offers for the joint ownership of property to be between a husband and wife rather than two guys who are just chatting on some internet forums.

Except then you go on to say that such incentives aren't actually incentives and start being rude to the guy who politely pointed out the obvious fallacy in your logic.

There are bigger incentives offered the married couple for that joint ownership of the house because they are living together and agreeing to do many more things for each other, not all of which can be given fair monetary value.
 
1.)Sure they tell you. That's what this is all about, whether or not they should stop. 2.)Governments don't have to make joint ownership legal, it's legal anyway.
3.)You and I can buy a house right now and make a contract declaring joint ownership.
4.)What you're talking about the financial incentives that the government offers for the joint ownership of property to be between a husband and wife rather than two guys who are just chatting on some internet forums.
5.) Except then you go on to say that such incentives aren't actually incentives and start being rude to the guy who politely pointed out the obvious fallacy in your logic.

1.) no they factually do not
2.) they protect it, without government its not legal in a basic sense
3.) yes we can and government will protect that legal contract
4.) nope im not thats what you guessed, i never even mentioned it
5.) and yet there was no fallacy, you assumed wrong and argued somethign never mentioned you made it up in your head, nor was i rude to you anything else you want to make up?

try again
 
There are bigger incentives offered the married couple for that joint ownership of the house because they are living together and agreeing to do many more things for each other, not all of which can be given fair monetary value.

Natural incentives and artificially created government incentives are entirely separate issues. Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that people can't gain the benefits of living together without getting married (or even jointly owning the property). That's just flat out incorrect.
 
1.) no they factually do not
2.) they protect it, without government its not legal in a basic sense
3.) yes we can and government will protect that legal contract
4.) nope im not thats what you guessed never even mentioned it
5.) and yet there was no fallacy, you assumed wrong and argued somethign never mentioned you made it up in your head, nor was i rude to you

try again

Not a single one of those points had anything to do with marriage. The government says if you buy property with your wife, they will give you a tax break, but if you buy it with me you won't. That is proactive offering of artificial economic incentives. It's something the government gives you. With that said, the rest of your points are irrelevant and invalid. You weren't rude to me, you were facetious to the people who responded before me, I found it off putting and not conducive to having an intelligent discussion.
 
And who decides who constitutes that body?

They pick the candidates and you vote on their choices. What do you think?

For someone who often talks of knowing law you don't seem to - unless you're calling civil court "the government" as well.

It's a government contract. Who do you think writes the terms of that contract?
 
Not a single one of those points had anything to do with marriage.
1.)The government says if you buy property with your wife, they will give you a tax break, but if you buy it with me you won't. That is proactive offering of artificial economic incentives. It's something the government gives you. With that said, the rest of your points are irrelevant and invalid. You weren't rude to me, you were facetious to the people who responded before me, I found it off putting and not conducive to having an intelligent discussion.

you like to just make up stuff as you go dont you?
what are you actually trying to argue or are you just gonna jump around making random points people arent saying?

make some more random points see where it gets you?

fact is government protects your contract and they dont tell you who you can jointly own a house with :shrug: that is factually wrong that is the fact i pointed out and nothing you said as changed that fact

you finding it off putting that you were wrong is your own issue, it will probably continue to hinder you from having intelligent discussions if you cant stay on topic and be factual.

government does NOT tell you who you can own a house with
 
Last edited:
Natural incentives and artificially created government incentives are entirely separate issues. Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that people can't gain the benefits of living together without getting married (or even jointly owning the property). That's just flat out incorrect.

Tenancy by the Entirety. It says that spouses cannot sell their interests in a jointly owned property which is owned under a "Tenancy of the Entirety", which is only available to legally married couples. Right of survivorship also exists under this which does not allow a spouse to leave jointly owned property of the couple to anyone else. This only applies to legal spouses.

There are many benefits that are only available under a legal marriage.
 
Tenancy by the Entirety. It says that spouses cannot sell their interests in a jointly owned property which is owned under a "Tenancy of the Entirety", which is only available to legally married couples. Right of survivorship also exists under this which does not allow a spouse to leave jointly owned property of the couple to anyone else. This only applies to legal spouses.

There are many benefits that are only available under a legal marriage.

All of which can be achieved by unmarried couples by using power of attorney and private contracts. The only benefits that are unique to marriage are artificially created financial incentives (and some stuff to do with removing obligations to testifying against each other, depending on where you're from).

@Agent J, whatever, it's not worth it. When people say stuff you disagree with you just start saying you win and they lose like it's some kind of factual declaration. The government doesn't state who you can own a house with, but it does state who you get financial benefits for owning a house with. Your insistence that artificial financial incentives aren't actually incentives just makes no sense at all, no matter how many times you repeat the word "factually" and tell people you won the argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom