• 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
@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 assistance 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.

i accept your concession

your statement was factually wrong and thanks for admitting it

there was no argument and "i" didnt win anything, you made a false statement, i pointed that fact out and you just admitted it :shrug:

the rest you are making up, i never argued any of it, what makes no sense is YOU repeating something nobody is talking about LMAO

your statement was factually wrong, theres no changing that fact

is there a new item you would like to discuss?
 
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.

No, they can't be. There are many things that power of attorneys do not cover. Tenancy by the Entirety is only available to legally married couple. It only exists for legally married couples.

And making people have more paperwork is advocating less efficiency. That one contract, the marriage license, takes the place of dozens of contracts, possibly more depending on the couple and it precludes the need to keep getting the contract changed as circumstances for the couple change.
 
i accept your concession

your statement was factually wrong and thanks for admitting it

there was no argument and "i" didnt win anything, you made a false statement, i pointed that fact out and you just admitted it :shrug:

the rest you are making up, i never argued any of it, what makes no sense is YOU repeating something nobody is talking about LMAO

your statement was factually wrong, theres no changing that fact

is there a new item you would like to discuss?

Again, keep saying "factually" and declaring yourself to have "won", but it means nothing. You claim that the government doesn't get involved in ownership of property between married couples, but it gives them tax breaks for it and allows them to own it without the proper legal mechanisms in place that you or I or anyone else would need to own the property. They just let you bypass a whole bunch of important issues because you're married. My point is that the government shouldn't be allowed to do that. I'm done discussing this with you as you evidently aren't capable of having an adult conversation, unlike the vast majority of people around here.
 
1.)Again, keep saying "factually"
2.)and declaring yourself to have "won", but it means nothing.
3.) You claim that the government doesn't get involved in ownership of property between married couples, but it gives them tax breaks for it and allows them to own it without the proper legal mechanisms in place that you or I or anyone else would need to own the property. They just let you bypass a whole bunch of important issues because you're married. My point is that the government shouldn't be allowed to do that.
4.)I'm done discussing this with you as you evidently aren't capable of having an adult conversation, unlike the vast majority of people around here.
1.) i will because your statement was factually wrong you admitted it lol
2.)where did i say i won? thats right i didnt you lied if you disagree please quote me telling you i won
3.) no i never made this claim at all, this is also a lie, you made it up. if you disagree please quote me saying otherwise
4.) thats a good move on your part since you are lying and you are just making up arguments. You wont be able to have an adult conversation with anybody when you keep lying and denying facts. The problem is all on your end and this thread proves that :shrug:
 
No, they can't be. There are many things that power of attorneys do not cover. Tenancy by the Entirety is only available to legally married couple. It only exists for legally married couples.
What aspects of Tenancy by the Entirety can't be replicated through power of attorney?

roguenuke said:
And making people have more paperwork is advocating less efficiency. That one contract, the marriage license, takes the place of dozens of contracts, possibly more depending on the couple and it precludes the need to keep getting the contract changed as circumstances for the couple change.
None of this is relevant to the question of whether the government should have the right to do this in the first place. It doesn't preclude the need to get contracts updated as circumstances change, it just ignores the need until divorce proceedings.

@J, just stop dude, I'm not playing your games, I come here to debate politics, not get into pissing matches with illiterate 12 year olds.
 
What aspects of Tenancy by the Entirety can't be replicated through power of attorney?


None of this is relevant to the question of whether the government should have the right to do this in the first place. It doesn't preclude the need to get contracts updated as circumstances change, it just ignores the need until divorce proceedings.

Having this considered joint property with a "right to survivorship" without the requirement of having to make up a specific contract stating this. We don't need the extra paperwork just so there is extra paperwork, especially not when most married couples want these protections. It doesn't cost you anything for them to have such protections, so why do you care?
 
@J, just stop dude, I'm not playing your games, I come here to debate politics, not get into pissing matches with illiterate 12 year olds.

translation: you cant back up the lies you just stated, we all now that already. This is why you have nothing left but to try failed insults, its typical of a person who has no logical or honest path to take, they become embarrassed and emotional so they lash out and become uncivil.

AN "adult" would simply just show integrity, admit they misspoke and NOT make up lies, you are choosing otherwise :shrug:

Again like i said if you believe you didn't just lie in your last post simply quote me saying the BS you claimed LOL
why dont you just quote me and prove me wrong?

When you are ready to stay on topic and have a honest discussion you let me know.
 
Having this considered joint property with a "right to survivorship" without the requirement of having to make up a specific contract stating this. We don't need the extra paperwork just so there is extra paperwork, especially not when most married couples want these protections. It doesn't cost you anything for them to have such protections, so why do you care?
Why should those protections be exclusive to married couples? If you're so concerned with saving paperwork, why not just give them to anyone who wants them so they don't have to go make a seperate power of attorney? Why should people who believe in marriage get special legal rights over people who don't?
 
Why should those protections be exclusive to married couples? If you're so concerned with saving paperwork, why not just give them to anyone who wants them so they don't have to go make a seperate power of attorney? Why should people who believe in marriage get special legal rights over people who don't?

Because that is part of the contract. You agree to register your relationship (basically) with the federal government and they provide you with certain conveniences/benefits, such as not having to draw up extra contracts and/or putting in place specific language in your "joint ownership contracts" to cover those situations and being able to have certain rights.
 
Because that is part of the contract. You agree to register your relationship (basically) with the federal government and they provide you with certain conveniences/benefits, such as not having to draw up extra contracts and/or putting in place specific language in your "joint ownership contracts" to cover those situations and being able to have certain rights.

So why can't people register any relationship they want and get the same benefits? Why does it have to be between a husband and wife?
 
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.

It's not really a matter of opinion. The tax code is in black and white and hardly subjective. Do a little research for yourself if you have questions.

Internal Revenue Service

Specifically, look at the write-offs married couples receive that single people do not.
 
It's not really a matter of opinion. The tax code is in black and white and hardly subjective. Do a little research for yourself if you have questions.

Internal Revenue Service

Specifically, look at the write-offs married couples receive that single people do not.
I covered most of the tax differences in earlier posts.
 
So why can't people register any relationship they want and get the same benefits? Why does it have to be between a husband and wife?

That is what is trying to be changed. Allowing a husband and a husband to register or a wife and a wife. At the moment, that is unfair. Once this gets changed, it will be much more fair in who is able to register their relationships to become legal spouses. Not everyone should be considered legal spouses just because they want to own property together or get the perks, because marriage actually is something that does give benefits to society when it is two people who plan to stay together in a relationship for a long time. That commitment and stability between adults is what brings the benefits to society. And that is why such people get certain "extras" for making that commitment. But they also agree to certain responsibilities over the other person as well. It isn't all just benefits. For most committed couples, the benefits are worth the extra responsibility (at least til there is a divorce). And for the government, the benefits of marriage on society are worth the extra perks of encouraging marriage. Now, admittedly part of it is simply something we are used to, but when we can determine that there are some benefits to marriage, very few problems that would not exist anyway, and people want the convenience of marriage, then why do other people care? If it is the government giving certain monetary perks of marriage, fine, work to have those changed by showing the population why they should be changed and are "unfair", but don't simply support the government not being involved because you believe they are causing an issue. This is the one area where government actually does a pretty decent job and is pretty efficient. Obviously there needs to be some changes to make it more fair to have access, particularly speaking of the current sex/gender discrimination, but the system as a whole actually works out very well.
 
It's not really a matter of opinion. The tax code is in black and white and hardly subjective. Do a little research for yourself if you have questions.

Internal Revenue Service

Specifically, look at the write-offs married couples receive that single people do not.

How about you be more specific? What exact writeoffs do married people get that single people don't? Anyone can get the EITC, child and dependent care credits, education credit, adoption credit, HCTC, saver's credit, sale's tax credit, and that covers those listed. There is also "head of household", which can be filed by individuals. I did this when I was single and claimed a relative who was living with me. So which ones are there that only married people can get?

Plus, people with children get writeoffs childless individuals don't. People with houses can get writeoffs that those who rent cannot. People who are in school get writeoffs those who aren't don't. People who invest get writeoffs those who don't can't get. People involved in businesses, such as owning their own, get writeoffs others can't. Those who work in a uniform can get writeoffs that those who don't can't get. There are many writeoffs on taxes that certain people can get while others can't just because those who get them do things, such as entering into a contract or taking a risk or taking care of another person, that others don't do.

I've done the research I need to do. You are the one making the claim that marriage costs you and other single people money. Therefore, it is your responsibility to show how they are and why that is unfair when other things aren't. Plus, you need to show why completely removing marriage is the best answer, rather than simply changing the tax code back to what it was before, when married couples ended up paying more taxes as a whole than single taxpayers.
 
That is what is trying to be changed. Allowing a husband and a husband to register or a wife and a wife

It's still giving married couples financial benefits over people who are responsible enough not to make promises they can't keep. I'm not gay, I just don't want to get married right now. Why does that mean I should pay more tax than you? If me and a friend decide to buy a house together and share it, why shouldn't we get the same benefits? I contribute more to the economy than you and your wife combined, what right do you have to sit and tell me about the benefits and responsibilities of marriage when you could be divorced by the end of the week?

If this is about shared property, then make it available to all shared property owners. Marriage should be a personal thing, the government shouldn't be involved with it.
 
It's still giving married couples financial benefits over people who are responsible enough not to make promises they can't keep. I'm not gay, I just don't want to get married right now. Why does that mean I should pay more tax than you? If me and a friend decide to buy a house together and share it, why shouldn't we get the same benefits? I contribute more to the economy than you and your wife combined, what right do you have to sit and tell me about the benefits and responsibilities of marriage when you could be divorced by the end of the week?

If this is about shared property, then make it available to all shared property owners. Marriage should be a personal thing, the government shouldn't be involved with it.

Except you are making an assumption that they are haven't made any promises. Just because the promise isn't on paper, doesn't mean it wasn't made. "I'll take care of you baby for the rest of your life, don't worry, we don't need paperwork to prove that. Don't you trust me?" This is still a promise. It is a less protected promise but one that is unfortunately made all the time.

You need to prove that you pay more taxes than me. As an individual, I technically pay more taxes than I would if I were single, my husband is the one who may pay less (he makes more than I do).

But there are plenty of tax disparities because the government gives tax incentives for things that society considers a positive, including taking care of children, adopting children (an additional tax credit to the child credit itself), donating time/money to charity, making their property more energy efficient, going to school, going overseas to combat, and many other things.

You don't get the extra benefits because it is not likely that you need them or want them to begin with (most friends buying property with each other have separate interests in that property and would be more likely to want to leave that interest to someone else, whereas a married couple is owning that property as one person, where they cannot give their "half" of the property to anyone (without specifying that they want to do so in the original agreement to buy it) because they are considered a single person). But along with this, you are not agreeing to the other conditions that are the reason that the benefits are given. Why should you get the perks without the downfalls that come with it? If you are willing to take the negatives, then there should be nothing to prevent you from getting married to your friend just for all the benefits as long as you are willing to take the responsibilities on as well.

I could be divorced (not likely though) but that doesn't cost you any more money than if my husband and I were simply living together without marriage and decided to breakup. If you think differently, prove it with numbers. So far, you haven't shown how my being in a marriage contract affects you at all.
 
Except you are making an assumption that they are haven't made any promises. Just because the promise isn't on paper, doesn't mean it wasn't made. "I'll take care of you baby for the rest of your life, don't worry, we don't need paperwork to prove that. Don't you trust me?" This is still a promise. It is a less protected promise but one that is unfortunately made all the time.

And they have laws for that, it's called child support, I guarantee you absolutely don't even want to get me started on that one. Point is, you still have that responsibility whether you are married or not. Sure, they made promises, but they can still get divorced and break the promises without losing anything other than financial benefits that they shouldn't have been getting in the first place.

I can't give a specific viewpoint on US taxes because sadly I don't live there yet, though my general view on taxation is that it is a form of theft by threat of violence and imprisonment, but I'm also willing to pay it for the same reason. Taxes in the US are substantially lower than where I was born and raised, and are also a lot lower than where I am right now.
 
Last edited:
And they have laws for that, it's called child support, I guarantee you absolutely don't even want to get me started on that one. Point is, you still have that responsibility whether you are married or not. Sure, they made promises, but they can still get divorced and break the promises without losing anything other than financial benefits that they shouldn't have been getting in the first place.

Who said anything about children? Adults promise to take care of each other, no children involved and default on that promise, leaving the "promised" party with bills and/or no job skills/experience and/or with problems caused by that promise with no legal protection for it. The divorce is the legal protection for those promises. It ensures that both people's contribution into the agreed upon arrangement are taken into account when it comes to deciding who gets what.

Tell me what benefits they shouldn't be getting in the first place. What parts of marriage are so burdensome to you and others exactly that couples shouldn't have them just for agreeing to be with each other, even if it doesn't last as long as they thought it would?
 
Tell me what benefits they shouldn't be getting in the first place. What parts of marriage are so burdensome to you and others exactly that couples shouldn't have them just for agreeing to be with each other, even if it doesn't last as long as they thought it would?
As I said, I don't currently live in the US, but the main one that bothers me everywhere I go is the opportunity to pay less income tax by filing joint tax returns. This can occasionally work the opposite way, but more often than not it leads to married couples getting to keep more of the money they earn than me. Or to put it another way, they get less stolen from them. Depending on the country, married couples also sometimes get a flat rate deduction on their income taxes and capital gains.

Income tax is a big deal to a lot of people. If I could abolish it outright I would. Failing that, I think the rules should be the same for everyone. Government tax breaks are just another manipulation of enslaved economies. They steal your money and make you think they are being generous when they agree to steal slightly less.
 
As I said, I don't currently live in the US, but the main one that bothers me everywhere I go is the opportunity to pay less income tax by filing joint tax returns. This can occasionally work the opposite way, but more often than not it leads to married couples getting to keep more of the money they earn than me. Or to put it another way, they get less stolen from them. Depending on the country, married couples also sometimes get a flat rate deduction on their income taxes and capital gains.

Income tax is a big deal to a lot of people. If I could abolish it outright I would. Failing that, I think the rules should be the same for everyone. Government tax breaks are just another manipulation of enslaved economies. They steal your money and make you think they are being generous when they agree to steal slightly less.

This income tax thing is just wrong. Most, on average, don't pay this. There would be basically the same amount almost brought in if they both filed separately. This is easily shown by the fact that 51% of individuals who are married pay less, and 42% pay more. Most would believe that this means that most couples pay less as married than if they filed separately. But the truth is that this is individuals, not couples. Most of that 51% is actually the spouses of many of that 42% and they really just balance each other out.

The rules aren't the same for everyone anyway. There are numerous deductions that have a much higher impact on how much or little a person pays than marriage. Deductions in taxes are given when people believe that those things that are given deductions are seen as benefits in other ways to society.

Plus, this doesn't really stand up well in an argument for abolishing marriage, only tax incentives for marriage. If you think these are wrong, convince others that they are so they work to change those laws. Otherwise, you are simply complaining. And it sounds like you are trying to throw the tub out with the dirty water when there is no reason to do so.
 
Except you are making an assumption that they are haven't made any promises. Just because the promise isn't on paper, doesn't mean it wasn't made. "I'll take care of you baby for the rest of your life, don't worry, we don't need paperwork to prove that. Don't you trust me?" This is still a promise. It is a less protected promise but one that is unfortunately made all the time.

You need to prove that you pay more taxes than me. As an individual, I technically pay more taxes than I would if I were single, my husband is the one who may pay less (he makes more than I do).

But there are plenty of tax disparities because the government gives tax incentives for things that society considers a positive, including taking care of children, adopting children (an additional tax credit to the child credit itself), donating time/money to charity, making their property more energy efficient, going to school, going overseas to combat, and many other things.

You don't get the extra benefits because it is not likely that you need them or want them to begin with (most friends buying property with each other have separate interests in that property and would be more likely to want to leave that interest to someone else, whereas a married couple is owning that property as one person, where they cannot give their "half" of the property to anyone (without specifying that they want to do so in the original agreement to buy it) because they are considered a single person). But along with this, you are not agreeing to the other conditions that are the reason that the benefits are given. Why should you get the perks without the downfalls that come with it? If you are willing to take the negatives, then there should be nothing to prevent you from getting married to your friend just for all the benefits as long as you are willing to take the responsibilities on as well.

I could be divorced (not likely though) but that doesn't cost you any more money than if my husband and I were simply living together without marriage and decided to breakup. If you think differently, prove it with numbers. So far, you haven't shown how my being in a marriage contract affects you at all.

Many of the things you said have legitimate positives that can be easily rationalized and proven. Encouraging couples to marry through tax incentives is the government pushing its morality on others who don't want it.

To support that, you unconsciously support all of America's "wars of aggression". And no - that's not hyperbole. Both instances involve America telling others what is "right".
 
Many of the things you said have legitimate positives that can be easily rationalized and proven. Encouraging couples to marry through tax incentives is the government pushing its morality on others who don't want it.

To support that, you unconsciously support all of America's "wars of aggression". And no - that's not hyperbole. Both instances involve America telling others what is "right".

No, it is encouraging something that is seen as a positive and has been shown as such in several studies. That isn't an assumption. Many studies show marriage as a positive.

No one is telling anyone they have to be married. What they are saying is marriage is a contract that helps a couple, benefits a couple, but it also comes with certain responsibilities and each person will be held accountable for making a promise to the other. For many, it isn't a big deal and they can work out something fairly between them. For others, they thought they would get more from the arrangement because of that contract but find out differently. In some cases, one person does receive a bad deal, but this could happen and is more likely to happen, without marriage.
 
This income tax thing is just wrong. Most, on average, don't pay this. There would be basically the same amount almost brought in if they both filed separately. This is easily shown by the fact that 51% of individuals who are married pay less, and 42% pay more. Most would believe that this means that most couples pay less as married than if they filed separately. But the truth is that this is individuals, not couples. Most of that 51% is actually the spouses of many of that 42% and they really just balance each other out.
It's not wrong where I live, and a quick google shows it's not wrong in the US either:

"Studies show that despite all of the noise about the marriage penalty, more than half of married couples actually pay less in taxes than they would if they were still single [source:Weston]. That's called a marriage bonus. The marriage bonus is largest when one spouse makes a lot more money than the other, but there are other situations -- like estate transfers or selling a home -- in which your marriage status can save you serious bucks on tax day."
HowStuffWorks "5 Tax Benefits That Come With Marriage" (I assume this relates to US tax laws).

roguenuke said:
The rules aren't the same for everyone anyway. There are numerous deductions that have a much higher impact on how much or little a person pays than marriage. Deductions in taxes are given when people believe that those things that are given deductions are seen as benefits in other ways to society.
I keep hearing that, but I don't seem to get many of these magical deductions despite the fact that I contribute vastly more to the economy than most individuals and I use less public services (only the ones I'm forced to).

roguenuke said:
Plus, this doesn't really stand up well in an argument for abolishing marriage, only tax incentives for marriage. If you think these are wrong, convince others that they are so they work to change those laws. Otherwise, you are simply complaining. And it sounds like you are trying to throw the tub out with the dirty water when there is no reason to do so.
Why does marriage have to be a legal concept if not for tax breaks? Why can't marriage just be a promise between two or more individuals? No one is talking about abolishing promises, they are talking about abolishing an out dated legal concept.
 
It's not wrong where I live, and a quick google shows it's not wrong in the US either:

"Studies show that despite all of the noise about the marriage penalty, more than half of married couples actually pay less in taxes than they would if they were still single [source:Weston]. That's called a marriage bonus. The marriage bonus is largest when one spouse makes a lot more money than the other, but there are other situations -- like estate transfers or selling a home -- in which your marriage status can save you serious bucks on tax day."
HowStuffWorks "5 Tax Benefits That Come With Marriage" (I assume this relates to US tax laws).


I keep hearing that, but I don't seem to get many of these magical deductions despite the fact that I contribute vastly more to the economy than most individuals and I use less public services (only the ones I'm forced to).


Why does marriage have to be a legal concept if not for tax breaks? Why can't marriage just be a promise between two or more individuals? No one is talking about abolishing promises, they are talking about abolishing an out dated legal concept.

That "Weston" source is where I got my information. That article got it wrong. More than half of married people pay less (just slightly 51%), but that is individual people, not couples. I read the actual study. I was using the numbers from that study with "51% and 42%". I covered that people get those wrong. Plus it was from around 2000.

The "estate transfers or selling a home" are referring to the fact that you are viewed as a single person in those situations instead of two people with two individual tax obligations. Married couples have agreed to be married and take care of each other, particularly while they are married. That arrangement gives them certain benefits because they are also likely to buy another house together and live in it together, rather than going their separate ways.

There are plenty of protections legal marriage, as a single contract, provide for couples. The majority of the benefits of marriage are legal protections that view the couple as owning property between them as if they were a single person, so that creditors cannot go after the property if they are only after one of the two, relatives cannot go after their stuff in the event of death or try to make decisions that should be for the spouse (such as Terry Schiavo), and if they do break up, then one person is less likely to get to take everything and leave the other without.
 
Back
Top Bottom