• 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 said:
I didn't. I simply stated that there was a cost.
Click to expand...

A cost that was so significant that you proposed that marriage be eradicated entirely. If that cost is so significant then you should be able to cite it. But as you said, no studies have been done, which means you had no way of knowing that such a cost was in truth significant when you initially made that claim. It just sorta...made sense to you...and you went with it. As you can see that's a pretty risky tactic in a debate.
 
Cardinal said:
It's certainly not involved in your marriage business. Genuinely curious: do you receive a certificate of any kind if you've been married in your church? If so (I assume the ceremony carries with it some notable significance), why shouldn't that be enough for you?
Click to expand...

Because I still have to go to the government in order to "validate" the marriage for insurance purposes, legal purposes, etc. Why do I have to explain this to you? Are you seriously unable to understand why/how the government is still involved? What is wrong with you?
 
Quik said:
Because I still have to go to the government in order to "validate" the marriage for insurance purposes, legal purposes, etc. Why do I have to explain this to you? Are you seriously unable to understand why/how the government is still involved? What is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

Well, again, you don't have to if you don't want to, but even if I were religious I'd still want the government to have that part in marriage, since doing provides certain protections from state to state, rather than being forced to battle it out in every single community I visit.
 
Cardinal said:
Well, again, you don't have to if you don't want to, but even if I were religious I'd still want the government to have that part in marriage, since doing provides certain protections from state to state, rather than being forced to battle it out in every single community I visit.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point, there shouldn't be "protections" because the government shouldn't be giving preference to anyone. Governments should just get out of the marriage business all together.
 
Quik said:
That's the whole point, there shouldn't be "protections" because the government shouldn't be giving preference to anyone. Governments should just get out of the marriage business all together.
Click to expand...

Yet you want the government in your marriage business for insurance purposes, legal purposes, etc. Right?
 
Cardinal said:
Yet you want the government in your marriage business for insurance purposes, legal purposes, etc. Right?
Click to expand...

No. They made it that way, not me. If the government wasn't in the marriage business then I wouldn't have to go to the government in order to have my marriage validated.
 
Cardinal said:
A cost that was so significant that you proposed that marriage be eradicated entirely. If that cost is so significant then you should be able to cite it. But as you said, no studies have been done, which means you had no way of knowing that such a cost was in truth significant when you initially made that claim. It just sorta...made sense to you...and you went with it. As you can see that's a pretty risky tactic in a debate.
Click to expand...

The problem you have here, Cardinal, is you're assuming that practicality is my only basis for an argument here when, in fact, my issue with government involvement in marriage is primarily one of principle.

The practical argument was made to appease you, in a sense, however I acknowledge that insufficient studies have been done to either make the case for or against government-sponsored marriage. The matter is inconclusive, awaiting further study.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The problem you have here, Cardinal, is you're assuming that practicality is my only basis for an argument here when, in fact, my issue with government involvement in marriage is primarily one of principle.

The practical argument was made to appease you, in a sense, however I acknowledge that insufficient studies have been done to either make the case for or against government-sponsored marriage. The matter is inconclusive, awaiting further study.
Click to expand...



There are principles left in Western Civilization ? Since when ?.........................
 
AGENT J said:
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
Click to expand...

You know,it's it's funny,but I kind of miss the days when bigots weren't afraid to state their bigotry.
At least you knew where you stood with them.
Nowadays,these bigots try to make themselves to be such great humanitarians in front of you while they are trying to strip away your rights behind your back.

I'll respect a bigot (like I said,at least you know where you stand with them) before I respect a coward.
There seems to be quite a number of cowards running around this thread.
 
Verthaine said:
You know,it's it's funny,but I kind of miss the days when bigots weren't afraid to state their bigotry.
At least you knew where you stood with them.
Nowadays,these bigots try to make themselves to be such great humanitarians in front of you while they are trying to strip away your rights behind your back.

I'll respect a bigot (like I said,at least you know where you stand with them) before I respect a coward.
There seems to be quite a number of cowards running around this thread.
Click to expand...

theres actually some logic in this and i agree

if one is a true bigot id rather know then them fake it all the time and be a huge coward

but then there are also those that are ashamed by their bigoted ways, i dont know how to feel about them, if they are HONESTLY ashamed then their may be hope for them.

My brother was actually like this and still is in ways, he admits that he isnt exactly "gay friendly" but he still supports equal rights, he just doesnt like it that much lol he used to be worse but he is much better now. all it has taken is honest exposure and for him to see with his own eyes that are the stereo types are just that stereotypes and some are flat out lies
 
AGENT J said:
theres actually some logic in this and i agree

if one is a true bigot id rather know then them fake it all the time and be a huge coward

but then there are also those that are ashamed by their bigoted ways, i dont know how to feel about them, if they are HONESTLY ashamed then their may be hope for them.

My brother was actually like this and still is in ways, he admits that he isnt exactly "gay friendly" but he still supports equal rights, he just doesnt like it that much lol he used to be worse but he is much better now. all it has taken is honest exposure and for him to see with his own eyes that are the stereo types are just that stereotypes and some are flat out lies
Click to expand...

The funny thing is,AJ is that I expect the "government out of marriage" tune to be song by the libertarians ("government out of pretty much everything" it's kind of been their thing for years) but to see so many conservatives all of a sudden act like this is something they have always supported is absolutely freaking hilarious.

But hey,I'm willing to give these conservatives here that have already posted the benefit of the doubt.
All they need to do is show us posts here where they came out and said that "government needs to get out of marriage" prior to Washington and Maine voting to allow SSM (November 6 2012) and that will show everyone here (or at least me,since I can't speak for anyone else but myself) that that person isn't totally full of crap.
That's cool by me.At least that shows some honesty and consistency.
Two things I highly respect.

Hey,didn't the guy who wrote this thread join here on December 2011?
Maybe he can help me find out where he made these sentiments on this forum prior to November 2012,because I seem to have a hard time finding it?
 
Verthaine said:
You know,it's it's funny,but I kind of miss the days when bigots weren't afraid to state their bigotry.
At least you knew where you stood with them.
Nowadays,these bigots try to make themselves to be such great humanitarians in front of you while they are trying to strip away your rights behind your back.

I'll respect a bigot (like I said,at least you know where you stand with them) before I respect a coward.
There seems to be quite a number of cowards running around this thread.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, definitely, the pc bigot is the most pathetic of all. It's like they've been conditioned to politely hate your guts. What's especially hilarious is when they get so defensive at the suggestion that they're prejudiced. Yeahhh, "I'm better than you, shut up and take your civil unions, stay away from our kids, and keep your sexuality to yourself, and *by the way* don't ever call me a bigot!"

Because this is usually a gradual revelation, at first it may seem like they can be reasoned with. At least with the fred phelps types who are not afraid to reveal right away how they really feel, they quickly go on ignore and that's the end of it.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
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
Click to expand...

Because it serves no purpose besides providing benefits for people for being in a relationship approved by the state. I realize the government feels they should try to encourage a stable environment for kids and encourage the family unit, but it's really not really their job or their place to worry about such a thing.

However, marriage would not die if the government left the business, but instead people would form their own contracts for their marriages with their own terms or they would do a religious marriage like they can now.

I consider removing government from marriage a part of the evolution marriage that is well past it time.
 
roguenuke said:
Religion does not own marriage. It has existed much longer than any religion now in practice.
Click to expand...

Government does not own marriage either. People own marriage, and as such they should be in charge of it.
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...
And just who the hell are you to tell me my wife and I can't jointly own a house and a car?

Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what marriage is, a contract between two people that creates what is essentially a domestic partnership, not too much different from a business partnership except, of course, the goal of the partnership isn't to establish a business.
 
MoSurveyor said:
And just who the hell are you to tell me my wife and I can't jointly own a house and a car?

That's exactly what marriage is, a contract between two people that creates what is essentially a domestic partnership, not too much different from a business partnership except, of course, the goal of the partnership isn't to establish a business.
Click to expand...

You can jointly own whatever you want. What you shouldn't get is tax writeoffs just for being married or for owning a home together. You should contribute as individuals. Also, if, god forbid, you should ever get divorced, I don't want public money going in to your court costs.

What I'm really looking for is

A) Clean contracts
B) Fair Taxation
C) An end to the political issue of who can/can't marry whom
 
Peter Grimm said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not everyone wants their world based on capitalism and individual ownership - especially not their home life. If that's what suits you, more power to you but you can leave me and mine out of your little world of micro-accounting.
 
Peter Grimm said:
You can jointly own whatever you want. What you shouldn't get is tax writeoffs just for being married or for owning a home together. You should contribute as individuals. Also, if, god forbid, you should ever get divorced, I don't want public money going in to your court costs.

What I'm really looking for is

A) Clean contracts
B) Fair Taxation
C) An end to the political issue of who can/can't marry whom
Click to expand...
No, what you want is every home to be internally run like a business and that's not gonna' ever happen.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Not everyone wants their world based on capitalism and individual ownership - especially not their home life. If that's what suits you, more power to you but you can leave me and mine out of your little world of micro-accounting.
Click to expand...

You and your wife can be married, but there is no reason the government needs to be a party to that.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I don't believe a word the Congressional Budget Committee says, sorry. Nor am I really all that interested in gay marriage or gay politics in general.

And yes, if you get a tax break whereas I don't, then you're getting it at my expense. I'm paying more taxes relative to my income than a married person. Thus, I'm subsidizing marriage, in a way.
Click to expand...
And what tax breaks do you think married couples get that you don't?
 
Peter Grimm said:
What I want is exactly what I stated, and there's no need to put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
I didn't put words in your mouth, I interpreted them in light of reality. You talking about one spouse having to pay the other spouse for child rearing is exactly that, turning a home into a business. Not everyone wants to live that way. If you do, fine. Write out that check every week to your spouse, but I don't and most other married couples don't, either. Keep your domestically inclined capitalistic in your own home, don't bother to invade mine with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom