• 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 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.

Admittedly life is simpler when you only care about yourself and what is in it for you.
 
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.

People have been arguing to get government out of marriage well before gay marriage ever became an issue.
 
Admittedly life is simpler when you only care about yourself and what is in it for you.

Yup. No straight answer. Also:

Me: Well, okay, but what's in it for you? How do you benefit from it?
*Crickets*

Like I said, I've been through this already.
 
People have been arguing to get government out of marriage well before gay marriage ever became an issue.

And yet...this topic only comes up during gay marriage debates, or right around when another states legalizes it. Funny that.
 
When? Since racially integrated marriages?

Why do you assume it's based on bigotry? People have had the position government shouldn't be in the marriage business since the beginning.
 
Why do you assume it's based on bigotry? People have had the position government shouldn't be in the marriage business since the beginning.

It's based on bigotry. Call me psychic.
 
And yet...this topic only comes up during gay marriage debates, or right around when another states legalizes it. Funny that.

How does that pass off as evidence of anything? We can't help it that the gay marriage debate is going on. Are we supposed to just shut up about our views on marriage until it's over?
 
It's based on bigotry. Call me psychic.

How does that even make sense? If we get government out of marriage then everyone would be permitted to marry whoever they please. If supporting something that would allow for more freedom is bigotry the world has just turned inside out.
 
How does that pass off as evidence of anything? We can't help it that the gay marriage debate is going on. Are we supposed to just shut up about our views on marriage until it's over?

Yes, because...

Me: Well, okay, but what's in it for you? How do you benefit from it?
*Crickets*
 
How does that even make sense? If we get government out of marriage then everyone would be permitted to marry whoever they please. If supporting something that would allow for more freedom is bigotry the world has just turned inside out.

Christ, this script is predictable.
 
Yes, because...

Me: Well, okay, but what's in it for you? How do you benefit from it?
*Crickets*

You really don't understand positions not based on self interest, do you? Are you Ayn Rand or something?
 
You really don't understand positions not based on self interest, do you?

You're not able to give a straight answer based on anybody's interest. This is why the internet-only interest in removing government from marriage isn't taken seriously. You have a proposal and absolutely no clue on how to argue in favor of it.
 
Christ, this script is predictable.

Would you care to explain how the position of allowing everyone to marry without government interference could possibly be a position based on bigotry?
 
Would you care to explain how the position of allowing everyone to marry without government interference could possibly be a position based on bigotry?

Same script.

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*
 
Same script.

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*

Yes, that is wonderful. Would you care to explain it? You do realize what a bigot would support, right?

The only way he could support my position is if he is a ****ing idiot that is out to cut off his own nuts.
 
Yes, that is wonderful. Would you care to explain it? You do realize what a bigot would support, right?

Yes, they would support being married within their own churches, and if government were removed from marriage they would have some justification for denying the legitimacy of marriages conducted outside their belief system; unlike now, in which they, if only in name, must be forced to share marriage with people they don't agree should have that title.

And I recognize this because removing government from marriage is only a topic that comes up during gay marriage debates or when another state legalizes it. And I recognize that connection because I'm smarter than a box of rocks.

And so, in response to the question, "should we remove government from marriage," I give my default answer: no.
 
You're not able to give a straight answer based on anybody's interest.

When you said “what’s in it for YOU” before I thought you were referring to the person you were talking to. Being straight, there is nothing in it for me personally. But for a gay couple? Ok, a couple things off the top of my head:

-Marriage allows one to claim tax deductions. So there is a financial benefit.
-Federally recognized SSM would allow service members to put their same sex spouses on their orders, thus entitling them to all the benefits military dependents are entitled to
-Federally recognized SSM would allow US Immigration to recognize same sex spouses for the purposes of becoming legal residents or citizens
-Marriage is recognized by governments worldwide. Civil unions are recognized by states. Civil unions are not recognized at the federal level and what is recognized by one state may not be recognized by another
-A married spouse can receive Social Security survivor benefits. This is not true for a civil union.

That is just a few off the top of my head without using Google.
 
Yes, they would support being married within their own churches, and if government were removed from marriage they would have some justification for denying the legitimacy of marriages conducted outside their belief system; unlike now, in which they, if only in name, must be forced to share marriage with people they don't agree should have that title.

What? I have no idea what you mean by that. In what direction do I even comment towards something like this that seems to be making an argument towards personal feelings that are entirely irreverent to what other people will be able to do.

Not only that, but people deny the legitimacy of marriages outside of their belief system already.

And I recognize this because removing government from marriage is only a topic that comes up during gay marriage debates or when another state legalizes it. And I recognize that connection because I'm smarter than a box of rocks.

So you're using your experience of these debates as an argument towards what the position is based on and what conversions happen outside of the debate of gay marriage that you assume without any sort of knowledge what so ever doesn't occur. Right..

Perhaps you shouldn't base your conclusions entirely on personal experience?
 
Last edited:
You're not able to give a straight answer based on anybody's interest. This is why the internet-only interest in removing government from marriage isn't taken seriously. You have a proposal and absolutely no clue on how to argue in favor of it.

My argument is based more on principle than it is on anything practical, however I simply don't see any benefit to society as whole by having the government manage marriage licenses. The more the government has to manage, the more resources need to be allocated toward that management. That's time, money, and people.
 
Government should stay out of marriage, gay or otherwise.
 
Government should stay out of marriage, gay or otherwise.

I think it's very cool that liberals and progressives are starting to come around to the libertarian position on marriage.
 
When you said “what’s in it for YOU” before I thought you were referring to the person you were talking to. Being straight, there is nothing in it for me personally. But for a gay couple? Ok, a couple things off the top of my head:

-Marriage allows one to claim tax deductions. So there is a financial benefit.
-Federally recognized SSM would allow service members to put their same sex spouses on their orders, thus entitling them to all the benefits military dependents are entitled to
-Federally recognized SSM would allow US Immigration to recognize same sex spouses for the purposes of becoming legal residents or citizens
-Marriage is recognized by governments worldwide. Civil unions are recognized by states. Civil unions are not recognized at the federal level and what is recognized by one state may not be recognized by another
-A married spouse can receive Social Security survivor benefits. This is not true for a civil union.

That is just a few off the top of my head without using Google.

I am in favor of Federally recognized marriage for the above reasons, the fourth one in particular.
 
What? I have no idea what you mean by that. In what direction do I even comment towards something like this that seems to be making an argument towards personal feelings that are entirely irreverent to what other people will be able to do.

Not only that, but people deny the legitimacy of marriages outside of their belief system already.



So you're using your experience of these debates as an argument towards what the position is based on and what conversions happen outside of the debate of gay marriage that you assume without any sort of knowledge what so ever doesn't occur. Right..

Perhaps you shouldn't base your conclusions entirely on personal experience?

Before accusing me of making arguments based on personal feelings, perhaps you should have come to this debate pre-prepared with arguments in favor of removing government from marriage. As you have none ("freedom" is not an argument), then my position is, quite simply, fine.
 
Last edited:
My argument is based more on principle than it is on anything practical, however I simply don't see any benefit to society as whole by having the government manage marriage licenses. The more the government has to manage, the more resources need to be allocated toward that management. That's time, money, and people.

It is perfectly self evident that your position is based on principle over practicality.

Do you have any citations that show that gigantic government resources are allocated to managing marriages? I've never heard of this and though I suspect you've made it up for the convenience of this debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom