• 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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
In Scandinavia, hardly anyone gets married anymore. What is the point? If you love someone, you can live with them. In Sweden, they call this "sambo."

There was a time when pretty much everyone agreed on the definition of marriage... so it worked. Marriage was between a man and a woman, it was a sacred bond, and divorce was an unthinkable stigma. Slowly, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health.... our perceptions have changed.

Now, there is all this fussing and fighting, hooting and hollering over what marriage ought to be, who ought to be allowed to marry whom, etc.

So I say like the ever forward-thinking and practical Swedes: What's the point?

Government shouldn't need to be involved in marriage. For those who want to get married and have a ceremony and wear the pretty dress, you can do so. Go to your church and get married, or your mosque, or your temple, or your favorite casino with a midget elvis impersonator holding the proceedings.... whatever floats your boat.

Wear your pretty dress, have your day in the sun.

But get rid of marriage as a legal status. It serves no purpose except to make society fight over nothing.
 
Last edited:
Two people don't need to be married to fight over nothing. Simply being in a relationship will do that to you.
 
Two people don't need to be married to fight over nothing. Simply being in a relationship will do that to you.

I dont' mean the married couple fighting, I mean society.

Look on these boards. There's literally a bajillion threads about gay marriage, and it's the most pointless fight in the world. Just get rid of marriage as a legal concept, and we'll have nothing to fight about as a society.

Better for everyone.
 
"We can't have marriage all to ourselves and would rather destroy it than share it with the icky gays." I also like the glossing over of how marriage was, for most of human history, part of the institutionalized slavery of women. But everyone* agreed on it, so it worked**.

*Men, primarily land-owning men
**It worked for the aforementioned men
 
"We can't have marriage all to ourselves and would rather destroy it than share it with the icky gays."

Is that supposed to be a straw man? It doesn't matter if it's supposed to be one, because it is one. I never said that, implied that, or meant to convey that.

I just don't believe in marriage as a government function.

That has nothing to do with gays, who, frankly, are very low on my list of things I normally think about. Gay marriage doesn't affect my day-to-day one bit.

If anything, my disdain for marriage as a legal concept comes from the fact that my girlfriend and I don't get any tax write-offs, while my sister, who is married, gets to write off the fact that she's married and gets a tax break for it. What a backward system that is! Why should the government care one way or the other?

I also like the glossing over of how marriage was, for most of human history, part of the institutionalized slavery of women. But everyone* agreed on it, so it worked**.

*Men, primarily land-owning men
**It worked for the aforementioned men

If marriage is intended to enslave women, how come it's always the woman who wants to get married and the man who doesn't want to commit? Most of the time, at least.
 
While I think the vast majority of people could do just fine without the government sanctioning their marriage, I still think there is a need to keep the legal framework on the books. Take me as just one example.

I have spent my entire military career stationed overseas. And since I refuse to date anyone I work with, my pool of prospective dates was pretty much limited non-Americans. And I did end up marrying a Cambodian national. But in order for me to get her put on my orders, and get here everything a military dependent is entitled to, we had to get married. In fact, due to my security clearance, if I didn’t marry her, and just lived with her, I risked losing my clearance (not that that swayed my decision).

When she goes with me to another country of assignment that country will only allow her to have the same residential or diplomatic status as I have if we are married.

And lastly, when we applied for her to get her American citizenship we had to show proof of our marriage.

So if you are in the US and don’t plan on leaving the US, it probably isn’t important that the government recognize your marriage. But the US isn’t the only country in the world. For the rest of us, any change in the status quo would still have to be recognized by all the other nations out there.
 
"We can't have marriage all to ourselves and would rather destroy it than share it with the icky gays." I also like the glossing over of how marriage was, for most of human history, part of the institutionalized slavery of women. But everyone* agreed on it, so it worked**.

*Men, primarily land-owning men
**It worked for the aforementioned men

Nope, I agree with him. And I don't find the gays the least bit icky. I'm clinking my champagne with them here in MN.

But it doesn't change the simple fact that government has no business holding this much power over other people's personal lives.

Marriage wasn't a legal institution in the US until the 1860's. The reason they started making it legal was so they could ban interracial couples from marrying.

And that lovely tradition of bigotry continues to this day. That's all legal marriage is: a tradition of bigotry. Get rid of it.
 
In Scandinavia, hardly anyone gets married anymore. What is the point? If you love someone, you can live with them. In Sweden, they call this "sambo."

There was a time when pretty much everyone agreed on the definition of marriage... so it worked. Marriage was between a man and a woman, it was a sacred bond, and divorce was an unthinkable stigma. Slowly, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health.... our perceptions have changed.

Now, there is all this fussing and fighting, hooting and hollering over what marriage ought to be, who ought to be allowed to marry whom, etc.

So I say like the ever forward-thinking and practical Swedes: What's the point?

Government shouldn't need to be involved in marriage. For those who want to get married and have a ceremony and wear the pretty dress, you can do so. Go to your church and get married, or your mosque, or your temple, or your favorite casino with a midget elvis impersonator holding the proceedings.... whatever floats your boat.

Wear your pretty dress, have your day in the sun.

But get rid of marriage as a legal status. It serves no purpose except to make society fight over nothing.

When you think about it, it's kind of anachronistic anyway. Quaint, sure, and a good excuse for a party, but hardly anything to get all worked up over.
 
If anything, my disdain for marriage as a legal concept comes from the fact that my girlfriend and I don't get any tax write-offs, while my sister, who is married, gets to write off the fact that she's married and gets a tax break for it. What a backward system that is! Why should the government care one way or the other?

Why do you think it's backward? I don't understand what you would think is forward.
 
Nope, I agree with him. And I don't find the gays the least bit icky. I'm clinking my champagne with them here in MN.

But it doesn't change the simple fact that government has no business holding this much power over other people's personal lives.

Marriage wasn't a legal institution in the US until the 1860's. The reason they started making it legal was so they could ban interracial couples from marrying.

And that lovely tradition of bigotry continues to this day. That's all legal marriage is: a tradition of bigotry. Get rid of it.

That's really not true. There have been laws about marriage for thousands of years. The specific system of marriage licenses may only be 150 years old, and it may have come from a bigoted source, but that has nothing to do with there being laws about who can and cannot get married, division of property, divorce, child custody, inheritance... all of it. I mean, Henry VIII had to yank his country out of Catholicism because the one lawmaking body that made rules about marriage (the church) had laws against divorce. Marriage is and always has been a legal institution.
 
That's really not true. There have been laws about marriage for thousands of years. The specific system of marriage licenses may only be 150 years old, and it may have come from a bigoted source, but that has nothing to do with there being laws about who can and cannot get married, division of property, divorce, child custody, inheritance... all of it. I mean, Henry VIII had to yank his country out of Catholicism because the one lawmaking body that made rules about marriage (the church) had laws against divorce. Marriage is and always has been a legal institution.

Yeah, but most of those things were dictated either by your church or seat-of-your-pants judging.

Rather different from giving the government sweeping control of whose love is legally recognized as valid nation-wide.
 
Is that supposed to be a straw man? It doesn't matter if it's supposed to be one, because it is one. I never said that, implied that, or meant to convey that.

I just don't believe in marriage as a government function.

That has nothing to do with gays, who, frankly, are very low on my list of things I normally think about. Gay marriage doesn't affect my day-to-day one bit.

If anything, my disdain for marriage as a legal concept comes from the fact that my girlfriend and I don't get any tax write-offs, while my sister, who is married, gets to write off the fact that she's married and gets a tax break for it. What a backward system that is! Why should the government care one way or the other?

If this were coming from anybody else I might believe it. It seems more like you've finally realized you're going to lose the SSM battle, and you're trying to set it aflame on the way out.

I don't think we should get rid of the legal element because there are simply far too many important advantages. I simply think that anybody who wants to get married should.

Or that we base the benefits off of domiciles, ie: if you're living together you're seen as one unit.
 
Why do you think it's backward? I don't understand what you would think is forward.

I don't think the government or the IRS should care one way or the other if I'm married or single.

Both my girlfriend and I work. We both file individually for taxes.

My sister and her husband both work. They file jointly for taxes. Thus, they pay less in taxes, just because they're married.

That makes no sense whatsoever. In other words, my girlfriend's extra taxes (and mine) are going to subsidize my sister.

Why is the government putting out a tax incentive for people to get married? It's backward. Married people are not more valuable to society than unmarried people.

To me, "forward" would be having the government out of what is really a personal decision.... whether or not to get married.
 
If this were coming from anybody else I might believe it. It seems more like you've finally realized you're going to lose the SSM battle, and you're trying to set it aflame on the way out.

I don't think we should get rid of the legal element because there are simply far too many important advantages. I simply think that anybody who wants to get married should.

Or that we base the benefits off of domiciles, ie: if you're living together you're seen as one unit.

I don't think this deserves a response at all. It's one part personal attack, one part straw man, and entirely uncalled for. I have an opinion on the institution of marriage, and, if you'd read my reply to paschendale, you'd know that gay marriage has very little to do with how I've formed that opinion.
 
I don't think this deserves a response at all. It's one part personal attack, one part straw man, and entirely uncalled for. I have an opinion on the institution of marriage, and, if you'd read my reply to paschendale, you'd know that gay marriage has very little to do with how I've formed that opinion.

None of what I said is a personal attack. I simply mentioned in the very first sentence that based on everything I've ever seen you write, I don't believe you that this has nothing to do with gay marriage.

You have wasted no breath condemning gay marriage, what caused this massive change of heart?
 
While I think the vast majority of people could do just fine without the government sanctioning their marriage, I still think there is a need to keep the legal framework on the books. Take me as just one example.

I have spent my entire military career stationed overseas. And since I refuse to date anyone I work with, my pool of prospective dates was pretty much limited non-Americans. And I did end up marrying a Cambodian national. But in order for me to get her put on my orders, and get here everything a military dependent is entitled to, we had to get married. In fact, due to my security clearance, if I didn’t marry her, and just lived with her, I risked losing my clearance (not that that swayed my decision).

When she goes with me to another country of assignment that country will only allow her to have the same residential or diplomatic status as I have if we are married.

And lastly, when we applied for her to get her American citizenship we had to show proof of our marriage.

So if you are in the US and don’t plan on leaving the US, it probably isn’t important that the government recognize your marriage. But the US isn’t the only country in the world. For the rest of us, any change in the status quo would still have to be recognized by all the other nations out there.

That's interesting, but I'd say you're the exception rather than the rule. There must be a way to work around that situation without institutionalizing marriage for the entire United States.

That kind of brings me to another topic, because I happen to believe in open borders anyway.
 
None of what I said is a personal attack. I simply mentioned in the very first sentence that based on everything I've ever seen you write, I don't believe you that this has nothing to do with gay marriage.

You have wasted no breath condemning gay marriage, what caused this massive change of heart?

I don't know if I've ever condemned gay marriage. That's not really the point, though. Marriage is an institution that government has no business being in charge of. How can a government of 350 million people realistically ever hope to decide who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry? It's a ridiculous attempt at social engineering that is well past its time.

It serves literally no purpose, except, I suppose, to make life easier for the IRS. Let whoever wants have whatever wedding ceremonies they want to have. Keep the government out of it.
 
That's interesting, but I'd say you're the exception rather than the rule. There must be a way to work around that situation without institutionalizing marriage for the entire United States.

That kind of brings me to another topic, because I happen to believe in open borders anyway.

Maybe make the “certificate of marriage” something you could always get after the fact in case you need it. Just like you don’t have to obtain a passport until you wish to leave the country, you don’t have to obtain a marriage certificate until you go somewhere you will need it. But the certificate doesn’t give you any type of benefits within the US, just as a US passport serves little purpose in the US. Just thinking outloud.
 
Maybe make the “certificate of marriage” something you could always get after the fact in case you need it. Just like you don’t have to obtain a passport until you wish to leave the country, you don’t have to obtain a marriage certificate until you go somewhere you will need it. But the certificate doesn’t give you any type of benefits within the US, just as a US passport serves little purpose in the US. Just thinking outloud.

That's a good idea. Honestly, though, I would just open the borders. If she has a job, or if you're willing to file her as a dependent, then she should be allowed in the country. That's on her own merits as an individual, nothing to do with the fact that she's together with you... which I don't think the government should bother with. I'm gonna start another thread on my thoughts on the border policy, though, because I don't want to derail my own thread here.
 
Yeah, but most of those things were dictated either by your church or seat-of-your-pants judging.

Rather different from giving the government sweeping control of whose love is legally recognized as valid nation-wide.

No, it's exactly the same, just on a different scale. Keep in mind, I'm not arguing for exclusivity of marriage for anyone. I even tend to side with the polygamists, though I do point out how messy it could get with issues like inheritance or medical proxy. But there have been laws and rules about marriage for thousands of years. And they're fairly important. English common law, which informs most of US law, dealt with issues of marriage and inheritance centuries before the United States existed. Having a set of criteria for awarding custody of children to parents in situations of divorce is a law about marriage. Do you really want all such decisions to be done ad hoc, simply up to the discretion of a judge? But even then, government is a part of that marriage, since a judge is deciding something.

If you want to do away with the heteroexclusivity of marriage, you should. I'm a pretty rabid SSM supporter. If you want to do away with tax breaks for married couples, that's fine. But I promise you that you don't want to suddenly no longer have law governing inheritance and child custody. And we certainly want laws against adults marrying minors, don't we? Are we going full on to polygamy? Then when he wants a second wife and she doesn't, someone has to decide whether or not the third partner is accepted into that marriage. Suppose there is no rule, suppose he says the third partner is in, and she says that the third partner isn't. When she divorces him, does she get half the property or a third? Do they have to sit in a room and argue it until they reach a settlement? What if they never do? Can they not divorce without one? ALL OF THIS REQUIRES LAW TO FIGURE OUT!!

Anything involving joint custody of property or children will have to have laws governing them. There is no way around that.
 
If this were coming from anybody else I might believe it. It seems more like you've finally realized you're going to lose the SSM battle, and you're trying to set it aflame on the way out.

I don't think we should get rid of the legal element because there are simply far too many important advantages. I simply think that anybody who wants to get married should.

Or that we base the benefits off of domiciles, ie: if you're living together you're seen as one unit.

Yeah I've found it curious how the "Let's get rid of marriage altogether" argument has been going around of late.
 
No, it's exactly the same, just on a different scale. Keep in mind, I'm not arguing for exclusivity of marriage for anyone. I even tend to side with the polygamists, though I do point out how messy it could get with issues like inheritance or medical proxy. But there have been laws and rules about marriage for thousands of years. And they're fairly important. English common law, which informs most of US law, dealt with issues of marriage and inheritance centuries before the United States existed. Having a set of criteria for awarding custody of children to parents in situations of divorce is a law about marriage. Do you really want all such decisions to be done ad hoc, simply up to the discretion of a judge? But even then, government is a part of that marriage, since a judge is deciding something.

If you want to do away with the heteroexclusivity of marriage, you should. I'm a pretty rabid SSM supporter. If you want to do away with tax breaks for married couples, that's fine. But I promise you that you don't want to suddenly no longer have law governing inheritance and child custody. And we certainly want laws against adults marrying minors, don't we? Are we going full on to polygamy? Then when he wants a second wife and she doesn't, someone has to decide whether or not the third partner is accepted into that marriage. Suppose there is no rule, suppose he says the third partner is in, and she says that the third partner isn't. When she divorces him, does she get half the property or a third? Do they have to sit in a room and argue it until they reach a settlement? What if they never do? Can they not divorce without one? ALL OF THIS REQUIRES LAW TO FIGURE OUT!!

Anything involving joint custody of property or children will have to have laws governing them. There is no way around that.

Again, I'll point to the example of Sweden, because, over there, very few people actually get married anymore, though very many people have children and pass on their possessions to their children when they die.

You nearly always have joint custody of children, as they are BOTH your children (it doesn't matter if you're married), and inheritance goes to whoever you have in your will. That's why most people in Sweden will have a will - that's something everyone should always do.

Children born to parents in a sambo relationship normally have the same family name as the father unless the parents have agreed to another surname, for example; the mother’s. Two of my cousins, for example, have their mother's surname, and a couple more have their maternal grandmother's surname.

When a married couple split up there are laws governing the disposition of their home and household goods (division of joint property of husband and wife). The sambo law has similar regulations for “sambo” couples who split up. The home is then divided in a similar manner as if they were married.

However, sambo couples do not inherit each other’s assets as married couples do. Since they do not inherit or become beneficiaries of each other’s property, it is important for sambos to have a joint will (last will and testament). A good example of this importance is Stieg Larsson, the renowned Swedish writer who lived sambo for many years with Eva Gabrielsson. When he died in 2004, his father and brother, not Eva, inherited his wealth worth millions. There were law suits and a settlement, but this could have been avoided with a will.
 
In Scandinavia, hardly anyone gets married anymore. What is the point? If you love someone, you can live with them. In Sweden, they call this "sambo."

There was a time when pretty much everyone agreed on the definition of marriage... so it worked. Marriage was between a man and a woman, it was a sacred bond, and divorce was an unthinkable stigma. Slowly, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health.... our perceptions have changed.

Now, there is all this fussing and fighting, hooting and hollering over what marriage ought to be, who ought to be allowed to marry whom, etc.

So I say like the ever forward-thinking and practical Swedes: What's the point?

Government shouldn't need to be involved in marriage. For those who want to get married and have a ceremony and wear the pretty dress, you can do so. Go to your church and get married, or your mosque, or your temple, or your favorite casino with a midget elvis impersonator holding the proceedings.... whatever floats your boat.

Wear your pretty dress, have your day in the sun.

But get rid of marriage as a legal status. It serves no purpose except to make society fight over nothing.

No.

....
 


Sorry, I've just been through this already.

Them: Oh, this gay marriage! Let's just get the government out of it altogether!
Me: Why?
Them: so the government doesn't intrude in your personal affairs.
Me: they're not.
Them: well, they're telling gays they can't get married!
Me: that's why there's a push for legalized gay marriage.
Them: Don't you want more freedom?
Me: For who?
Them: For everybody!
Me: To do what?
Them: to get married to who you want.
Me: I can do that.
Them: it's not just about yourself.
Me: Well, okay, but what's in it for you? How do you benefit from it?
*Crickets*

The debate usually gets a lot more convoluted and stupid from that point on, but that's the jist of it. I can't get a straight answer how I would benefit from it, I can't get a straight answer about how they benefit from it. And that's pretty much because they haven't made one up yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom