• 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
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."

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?
There's a difference between Swedish society and ours. Unless you're also willing to adopt other Swedish ways it's a false analogy.


But I'm certainly all in for deleting "marriage" from the law books and changing it to civil union, civil partnership, or whatever. That would also resolve the issue of "We own that word and you can't use it!" :lol:
 
There's a difference between Swedish society and ours. Unless you're also willing to adopt other Swedish ways it's a false analogy.


But I'm certainly all in for deleting "marriage" from the law books and changing it to civil union, civil partnership, or whatever. That would also resolve the issue of "We own that word and you can't use it!" :lol:

...by letting them own the word so that we can't use it? :?
 
...by letting them own the word so that we can't use it? :?
They still wouldn't own it but it wouldn't be of use in the legal system at all. Then people can have whatever ceremony they want and call it whatever they want - but if they want their union to be legally recognized by society it won't be a "marriage" license they'll be registering, it'll be something else.
 
They still wouldn't own it but it wouldn't be of use in the legal system at all. Then people can have whatever ceremony they want and call it whatever they want - but if they want their union to be legally recognized by society it won't be a "marriage" license they'll be registering, it'll be something else.

And the avantage of this over the current system would be...?
 
And the avantage of this over the current system would be...?
That it would end the problem without changing a damn thing legally.


On a personal note, I think it would probably piss off the religious people that expect their marriage to be recognized by society. It wouldn't work that way anymore. They'd have to register as a civil union or whatever just like everyone else - or not, as they see fit.
 
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.

All of which requires laws that determine how a family unit legally operates. The only difference is that they're forgoing a formal marriage ceremony and calling it something different. Which is just the tired old "seperate but equal" argument.
 
And how would you define the "problem"?
The seeming "fact" that religious people don't want gays being "married".

To me the solution is obvious, then, no one gets to be legally married. Society will ignore church marriages just as much as it will ignore gay marriages.
 
I think government should be out of the marriage business.

While everyone wants to frame this in terms of gays, who it also REALLY hits is seniors and families. The marriage penalty can be HUGE and prohibitive against marriage because if married the government combines their income in calculations and not if they aren't. For this reason, it can be so costly for couples to marry due to benefits issues they literally dare not do so.

A young couple we know have three YOUNG children, not much income and dare not remarry. They divorced in part due to huge financial pressures, but are back together - though not married and technically must pay for two different housing situations - because they would lost more than they could withstand in government assistance. One has 1 child, the other has 2. By NOT being married, the government assists both with food stamps, housing and utilities assistance, daycare assistance etc etc. BUT if they marry then the income becomes joint and they lose most benefits.

In that and in many other ways, the government pays people to divorce and have broken families. It is NOT just about gay rights.
 
The seeming "fact" that religious people don't want gays being "married". To me the solution is simple, then, no one gets to be legally married. Society will ignore church marriages just as much as it will ignore gay marriages.

Um...no. Every religion has some arbitrary belief system, and I doubt you'd have to look very hard to find one that believes any of a number of things that disqualify me from common privileges I take for granted. So with all due respect religious people, at least in this context, can bite me.
 
I guess "sambo" isn't a racist term in Sweden.
 
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 thanks Im very found of the approx 1200 rights and protection the legal contract offers some that cant be achieved any other way and many not as legally binding.

This is a non problem in reality because "fighting" isnt a concern, my marriage is non of other peoples business, just like your marriage is none of my business.

Not to mention if those that are against SSM are actually being HONEST, this would NOT solve the problem. Who cares if government gets out to them, gay marriage will still exists just like it does now, and if its such an EVIL thing then why would they stop fighting against it?

and why not a public poll? any polls on matters like these that arent public are failures.
 
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.

The reason I started talking to you in this thread was not to show you the benefits of my position, but to try to get you to tell me why you think my position is based on bigotry. You have not yet done that and in fact you refuse to do so.
 
The reason I started talking to you in this thread was not to show you the benefits of my position, but to try to get you to tell me why you think my position is based on bigotry. You have not yet done that and in fact you refuse to do so.

Well, I guess what we have here is a good old fashioned Mexican standoff then. You won't explain the benefits of removing government from marriage, and until you do I feel no real compulsion in proving that your position is based on bigotry, except insofar as this topic only ever rises as a result of gay marriage discussions or gay marriage news stories (and opposition to gay marriage is absolutely rooted in bigotry).

If we were characters in a Quentin Tarantino movie I guess this is the part where we'd both shoot each other (along with two or three other people for good effect).
 
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.

Marriage should be treated the same as any other contract. No need to license it. No need to pass laws over it. The extent of government involvement should be only in the divorce courts.
 
Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes.

Completely do away with any government interference we know today as "marriage". Remove all tax benefits, and allow for third party arbitrators to iron out divorce details.

If you want a "husband" or a "wife", then it's a cosmetic title only. This way, you can use the term to your parents and have them not think that you're raising 3 cats with your "life partner".
 
The idea of removing government from marriage is so asinine, so illogical, so clumsy...its proponents so unwilling to make even the smallest attempt at forming a coherent argument in favor of it...that I've now come to believe this proposal was invented purely for sake of trolling me. I don't mean people like me, I mean me...personally.
 
The idea of removing government from marriage is so asinine, so illogical, so clumsy...its proponents so unwilling to make even the smallest attempt at forming a coherent argument in favor of it...that I've now come to believe this proposal was invented purely for sake of trolling me. I don't mean people like me, I mean me...personally.

If you can't side with anti-marriage proponents, I guess you'd have to be against SSM. It has to do with that 8-letter word that starts with "e".

Just funny how some people can show favoritism to a certain class of people, but not others.
 
I support ending the legal recognition of marriage (so I can keep at least some of my stuff when my wife realizes my growth curve has taken a downward plunge and runs off to some pot-smoking lesbian hippie retreat where Lady Bic Razors are burned in protest)
 
Well, I guess what we have here is a good old fashioned Mexican standoff then. You won't explain the benefits of removing government from marriage, and until you do I feel no real compulsion in proving that your position is based on bigotry, except insofar as this topic only ever rises as a result of gay marriage discussions or gay marriage news stories (and opposition to gay marriage is absolutely rooted in bigotry).

If we were characters in a Quentin Tarantino movie I guess this is the part where we'd both shoot each other (along with two or three other people for good effect).

I will happily explain to you the benefits of removing government from marriage when you provide me with a reason why my position is based on bigotry.

You will never do that though, will you?
 
I support ending the legal recognition of marriage (so I can keep at least some of my stuff when my wife realizes my growth curve has taken a downward plunge and runs off to some pot-smoking lesbian hippie retreat where Lady Bic Razors are burned in protest)

The problem with your argument is that when you got married you agreed to give her ownership of your property. If you don't like shared property and its pit falls of mindless disputes over property you shouldn't have agreed to it. Yup, she didn't put anything towards buying anything in the entire house and yet she gets everything. Go figure.
 
I will happily explain to you the benefits of removing government from marriage when you provide me with a reason why my position is based on bigotry.

You will never do that though, will you?

No more stalling. Either make an argument in favor of your position or admit you don't have one.
 
No more stalling. Either make an argument in favor of your position or admit you don't have one.

Come on, we know he doesn't have one, he hasn't got a rational argument in favor of anything he believes.
 
No more stalling. Either make an argument in favor of your position or admit you don't have one.

I have already offered one reason in this thread and yet you haven't offered up one in return. Why should I continue to give to you when you give nothing in return?
 
Back
Top Bottom