• 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
I think that if you did research on biological parents who raise children without marriage, you wouldn't find the disparity in stability that you're looking for in regard to this thread.

Biological vs. non-biological, as well as straight vs non-straight raising of children are all irrelevant and take us into an entirely different debate. What's relevant is that studies find consistent relationship between marriage and relationship stability.
 
I'm not aware that it's ever been studied. Still, it's fairly self-evident that the more work you assign the government to do, the more resources it will require in order to perform the tasks allocated to it.

I'm not sure why you would question this.

Questioning what you think is "self evident" helps you to re-examine your assumptions. It's what friends are for.
 
Why does the government have to play the role of Judge Judy or Jerry Springer and sort out people's messy personal issues?

No thanks.

They're going to do that anyway. Civil contract disagreements are handled in the same way that marriage disagreements are, in civil courts. If two family members are fighting over who gets what when someone dies, they go to civil court. If two people who have a contract with each other have a dispute over that contract or want to dissolve that contract but cannot decide how to do so, they go to civil court. And to get divorced, married people go to court (or just file paperwork if they can agree without needing the arbitrator).

Judge Judy is part of the government. And Jerry Springer exists with or without marriage and is not what our courtrooms commonly become when it comes to marriage disputes/divorce.
 
I think that if you did research on biological parents who raise children without marriage, you wouldn't find the disparity in stability that you're looking for in regard to this thread.

Actually, you would be wrong. Those bio parents who try to raise children without marriage end up more often than not breaking up before the child is even in school. Some can do it, most can't. If they could, they would probably just get married so they both have more protections when it comes to the child/each other.
 
Questioning what you think is "self evident" helps you to re-examine your assumptions. It's what friends are for.

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.
 
They're going to do that anyway. Civil contract disagreements are handled in the same way that marriage disagreements are, in civil courts. If two family members are fighting over who gets what when someone dies, they go to civil court. If two people who have a contract with each other have a dispute over that contract or want to dissolve that contract but cannot decide how to do so, they go to civil court. And to get divorced, married people go to court (or just file paperwork if they can agree without needing the arbitrator).

Judge Judy is part of the government. And Jerry Springer exists with or without marriage and is not what our courtrooms commonly become when it comes to marriage disputes/divorce.

Well that all needs to be simplified. I don't think such decisions should be made by the subjective whims of some nameless, faceless judge.
 
I'm not aware that it's ever been studied. Still, it's fairly self-evident that the more work you assign the government to do, the more resources it will require in order to perform the tasks allocated to it.

I'm not sure why you would question this.

Not true. The government already has the laws in place for marriage. So if you take them away now, it actually makes the government's job harder when it comes to figuring out marriage disagreements. They would need whole new sets of rules for what to do in each situation and how things are resolved. Marriage makes things more efficient, more streamlined for both the couple and the government. One contract to decide things for the couple and then the couple can decide if they need to use other contracts to tweak the main one to their needs, instead of many, many contracts for everyone with no rules governing how they would work, how insurance would work, how joint ownership would work, how spousal privilege would work, who is more important, family or significant other, when is someone considered more than just a girlfriend/boyfriend and closer to a legal spouse without the paperwork, and so many more things that make the government's job harder.
 
A fish by any other name would be just as rank.

Just do away with the concept altogether, at least legally. There is no need for the government to track who is coupled with whom.

There are plenty of reasons for the government to track who is coupled with whom when those people want to be tracked. No one in a marriage was forced by the government to enter that marriage. They volunteer to do so for the legal recognition of the government.
 
I can't help but notice that the "lets get government out of marriage" sing-a-long here didn't really exist a year ago.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-a...ts-help-pro-gay-marriage-group-w-56-61-a.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/127976-its-time.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-a...ame-sex-couples-recieve-federal-benefits.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-a...ponents-submit-signatures-referendum-w47.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-a...ried-stop-5th-grader-giving-speech-ssm-2.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/sex-and-sexuality/129472-legalize-gay-marriage-now.html

Quite a posters back here weren't singing that tune last year.

I wonder what could have happened within a year?

Sounds suspiciously like a "scorch earth" policy of "if we anti-SSM can't control marriage,then no one should benefit from it".
Or to be blunt,a dogs attitude of "if you can't screw it or eat it,or piss on it".

while im sure there were a few that felt that way forever yes you are right SSM has brought them out. In general MOST but not all people that bring it up are trying to hide how they really feel.


if very similar to most but not all the dishonest people that argue "traditional marriage", "sanctity of marriage", "religions" etc etc its all BULL**** lol

why because i dont recall those people making such a big claim amount the MILLIONS of no religious marriages that happen all the time or the millions that dont follow traditions

its a crock of an argument, a failed strawman that has been destroyed over and over
 
Well that all needs to be simplified. I don't think such decisions should be made by the subjective whims of some nameless, faceless judge.

It's simple now. It would be horrendous without civil marriages like we now have. I don't know why you think marriage is some complicated government business now. It really isn't. It is one of the most efficient contracts we have and involves one of the most efficient methods for leaving a contract that we have. It involves a lot more than most contracts, but this would still be true if we were talking about many different smaller, no government involved contracts too, just much more complicated.

And those same judges would be making civil decisions for those couples that couldn't agree when it comes to them just living together in your "sambo" situation. There would still be many couples who couldn't agree on who got what when they broke up. There would still be many couples who couldn't agree on who got the kids and who paid what. There would be plenty of couples who would need a judge to basically tell them what is fair (even when it isn't for some).

But there would be even more problems, especially from legally recognized blood relations contesting the validity of the relationship, since there would be no legal marriage.
 
Not true. The government already has the laws in place for marriage. So if you take them away now, it actually makes the government's job harder when it comes to figuring out marriage disagreements. They would need whole new sets of rules for what to do in each situation and how things are resolved. Marriage makes things more efficient, more streamlined for both the couple and the government. One contract to decide things for the couple and then the couple can decide if they need to use other contracts to tweak the main one to their needs, instead of many, many contracts for everyone with no rules governing how they would work, how insurance would work, how joint ownership would work, how spousal privilege would work, who is more important, family or significant other, when is someone considered more than just a girlfriend/boyfriend and closer to a legal spouse without the paperwork, and so many more things that make the government's job harder.

I have a very simple solution. Everyone takes out what they bring in. Just like if you were living with a roommate - you each have your own assets. If you're going to have joint assets, enter in to a legal contract.
 
Yes, marriage should strictly be a religions act.
 
It simple now. It would be horrendous without civil marriages like we now have.

And those same judges would be making civil decisions for those couples that couldn't agree when it comes to them just living together in your "sambo" situation. There would still be many couples who couldn't agree on who got what when they broke up. There would still be many couples who couldn't agree on who got the kids and who paid what. There would be plenty of couples who would need a judge to basically tell them what is fair (even when it isn't for some).

But there would be even more problems, especially from legally recognized blood relations contesting the validity of the relationship, since there would be no legal marriage.

And judges shouldn't be getting in the middle of all that henpecking and bickering. Simple. You get what you brought with you. Assets should not be jointly owned anyway.
 
And judges shouldn't be getting in the middle of all that henpecking and bickering. Simple. You get what you brought with you. Assets should not be jointly owned anyway.

They're going to be there anyway. There is no way to prevent this. When there is a dispute over who gets what, who owns what, or who gets what say, judges are involved in civil courts. That is why we have civil courts.
 
I have a very simple solution. Everyone takes out what they bring in. Just like if you were living with a roommate - you each have your own assets. If you're going to have joint assets, enter in to a legal contract.

And how does this get decided? What if one person stayed home to raise the children and take care of the house and the other worked? Now the one who worked wants out and to take everything because their job paid for it? That just get it because they earned it the money, despite being taken care of by the other person?
 
And how does this get decided? What if one person stayed home to raise the children and take care of the house and the other worked? Now the one who worked wants out and to take everything because their job paid for it? That just get it because they earned it the money, despite being taken care of by the other person?

Yeah, pretty much.
 
Yeah, pretty much.

So then the rest of us have to take care of that other person because they took care of the one for a good portion of their life without getting paid because people have to share those responsibilities? I don't think that would go over very well with most people. At all. It certainly doesn't work for me. That non-money-earning person was still doing work, taking care of their children, taking care of their home, supporting that other person so they could work to provide monetary support. The non-monetary support still matters though. It cannot simply be dismissed.
 
So then the rest of us have to take care of that other person because they took care of the one for a good portion of their life without getting paid because people have to share those responsibilities? I don't think that would go over very well with most people. At all. It certainly doesn't work for me. That non-money-earning person was still doing work, taking care of their children, taking care of their home, supporting that other person so they could work to provide monetary support. The non-monetary support still matters though. It cannot simply be dismissed.

Yeah, but I don't want the government quantifying the value of that work.

The solution is very simple. Enter in to a contractual agreement. In essence, a stay-at-home mom should be paid for her work by her husband. That way, the courts don't need to get involved.

Also, the idea of joint ownership of assets should be tossed out the window. If you buy a house, it goes under one person's name. When you split up, whoever owns the house gets the house.
 
Yeah, but I don't want the government quantifying the value of that work.

The solution is very simple. Enter in to a contractual agreement. In essence, a stay-at-home mom should be paid for her work by her husband. That way, the courts don't need to get involved.

Also, the idea of joint ownership of assets should be tossed out the window. If you buy a house, it goes under one person's name. When you split up, whoever owns the house gets the house.

The government is going to do it. People are not going to do this themselves. They will not be able to agree on what value things are, especially not before it happens. You are living in this dream world. It isn't reality.

Why should it go under only one if both provide money toward the house, as many couples do? That's not right.
 
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.

Christ

Why does everyone loath marriage so much that they really consider deleting it form human history?

I want to be married - and live a unified life - and be treated as such per a family and not be classified as single and 'occupying a home' . . . gesus
 
The government is going to do it. People are not going to do this themselves. They will not be able to agree on what value things are, especially not before it happens. You are living in this dream world. It isn't reality.

Why should it go under only one if both provide money toward the house, as many couples do? That's not right.

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.
 
Christ

Why does everyone loath marriage so much that they really consider deleting it form human history?

I want to be married - and live a unified life - and be treated as such per a family and not be classified as single and 'occupying a home' . . . gesus

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.
 
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.

It's fine if you don't like it or get any of it - that's fine.

I do . . . I like it and I get it.
 
It's fine if you don't like it or get any of it - that's fine.

I do . . . I like it and I get it.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom