• 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!

Republican Steve King wants an abolish civil marriage in the United States

should civil marriage be aboloshed in favor of holy matrimony only?

  • Yes, because it will stop gay marriage

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, because everybody in the US should be part of a religion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, because most people in the US do not want there to be gay marriage

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't care, I am already married and I do not plan to re-marry

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am unmarried and will never marry, I hate being shackled to some man/woman

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    35
Nuclear families have never been shown to be the only families that benefit society. It could easily be argued that extended families benefit society just as well, if not more, than nuclear families due to they usually involve multiple family members taking in other family members, who then don't cost society money to care for (or as much money to care for).

well, there ya go... no reason for the govt to be in the marriage business then.
 
well, there ya go... no reason for the govt to be in the marriage business then.

There is plenty of reasons for government to still be there though. The recognition of the families is still relevant, even if it isn't just nuclear families being recognized as legally kin.
 
Then why would they not take such things into consideration before they got married? If they didn't take considerations about their future spouse into mind then, before the marriage, such as what job skills, education, and whether they have a job or not before they got married, then isn't that a bad decision on their part?

It doesn't even matter. If she stays at home is still not grounds to divorce her.
 
It doesn't even matter. If she stays at home is still not grounds to divorce her.

It matters in your argument being that it is her bad decision, yet factors such as education, having a job before, job skills they have, what was done for the family, and many other things are things that the court takes into account when deciding on alimony, whether it should be paid, and that would be things that the other person (husband or wife) should have known about, at least to a degree, before getting married to that person. Is it not a bad decision for a woman to marry a man or woman without a job or any education or job skills? Why would the same not be true for a man?
 
It matters in your argument being that it is her bad decision, yet factors such as education, having a job before, job skills they have, what was done for the family, and many other things are things that the court takes into account when deciding on alimony, whether it should be paid, and that would be things that the other person (husband or wife) should have known about, at least to a degree, before getting married to that person. Is it not a bad decision for a woman to marry a man or woman without a job or any education or job skills? Why would the same not be true for a man?

You're really better than this Rogue. Not only do people change their minds about wanting children, but they change their minds about staying at home and this can and does happen after they are married. Regardless, the idea he agreed to it because he didn't divorce her when she decided to stay at home is asinine. What kind of man is just going to pull the trigger when she decides to stay at home? It's really not that big of a deal when all is said and done.
 
Last edited:
You're really better than this Rogue. Not only do people change their minds about wanting children, but they change their minds about staying at home and this can and does happen after they are married. Regardless, the idea he agreed to it because he didn't divorce her when she decided to stay at home is asinine. What kind of man is just going to pull the trigger when she decided to stay at home? It's really not that big of a deal when all is said and done.

The kind of man who doesn't want to later take responsibility for her not getting/having relevant job skills and/or education, and/or job experience that would leave him paying alimony for choosing the woman he did. Alimony is not something that is paid lightly. It is rarely a part of divorce at all nowdays. When it is, it is for good cause. Generally it is because the decision was mutually made for one person to stay home while the other worked.

There are alternatives to paying alimony, such as not leaving a spouse you know will get alimony. If you aren't going to leave because she/he won't get a job, then why would you leave later for other reasons and not expect to pay alimony? If it is something they did, then that should be taken into account when it comes to whether they get alimony and how much. But being the sole moneymaker in a relationship has advantages, advantages that can cause a big power differential in the relationship, and lead to abuse (not all abuse is physical).
 
Then what is the problem with those things? I'm really confused now. We have ways to set up relationships, via marriage licenses, adoption contracts/records, and birth certificates (and in some limited cases court paperwork), and other relationships stem from these papers. But I don't see what the issue is if you are saying we should have these but the government should stay out of these things. They are the ones that issue or approve these. You send the birth certificate information to the government (office of vital statistics) when your child is born. You go there to get a license, and either you or your officiant returns the license once it is signed and you get an official copy of either eventually (usually in the mail). That is it. The government then only uses the paperwork to check to ensure that you have the connections you claim to have via that official paperwork.

There's no problem with them, unless they are only available, at no additional cost, to certain types of govt recognized relationships. I just pointed out that if the govt didnt, everyone could still just work it out...yes...at additional cost sometimes.

Who says you are entitled more to those things, or to them free, if you are in a relationship and others...single or not in govt recognized relationships...arent?

Right now, the govt says so.
 
There's no problem with them, unless they are only available, at no additional cost, to certain types of govt recognized relationships. I just pointed out that if the govt didnt, everyone could still just work it out...yes...at additional cost sometimes.

Who says you are entitled more to those things, or to them free, if you are in a relationship and others...single or not in govt recognized relationships...arent?

Right now, the govt says so.

What more things are one group entitled to that others aren't? Single people by definition, are not two people. Most of the recognition is given to people for their marriage being recognized as two people instead of one, or where applicable, recognizing that those two people agreed to take on certain responsibilities and are joining their expenses, many to the point where they own things together, don't separate their money into "his and hers" or "his and his" or "hers and hers". Those things are relevant.

And marriage is available to people cohabiting. If they aren't willing to take the responsibilities that come with marriage, then what is wrong with denying them the benefits? If someone isn't willing to join the military, should they still get the benefits military personnel get?
 
Who said it had to be a woman who was the one to stay home, sacrificing good job experience so that someone was there to watch the children, take care of the house, while someone else worked to provide money for the family? Either spouse can get alimony. And either person would be sacrificing provable workforce experience, possibly an education in order to take care of the children, the household.

Life is full of choices. Nobody held a gun to a housewifes head and forced her to be a housewife. It's a choice. And we live with consequences of the choices we make.

Your argument makes about as much sense as if I were to say I should be compensated for the present value of all the dates I paid for and all the gifts I bought my wife...because I could have invested that money in stocks and received a return.

It doesn't work that way.
 
There is plenty of reasons for government to still be there though. The recognition of the families is still relevant, even if it isn't just nuclear families being recognized as legally kin.

what are these reasons?..
I don't care about govt recognition... i'ts the policies that are relevant... recognizing marriage is useless symbolism.
as it stands now, many are penalized by the tax code for being married, while many social program recipients are rewarded for being single.... sometimes they can't even get assistance if they are married.
so ,yeah, i think we're beyond promoting marriage or family and well into promoting singlehood and breaking up families.... not in every case mind you, but far too many for the govt to be considered to be promoting families of any kind.
our govt still sides with the mother when it comes to children, so it's not like they are interested in fathers as equals.. so it really can't be argued that our govt supports families anymore.... hell, they support public school more than parents when it comes to the children... so yeah... we might just be a lot better off without the kind of "support" they lend families of any kind.
 
The kind of man who doesn't want to later take responsibility for her not getting/having relevant job skills and/or education, and/or job experience that would leave him paying alimony for choosing the woman he did. Alimony is not something that is paid lightly. It is rarely a part of divorce at all nowdays. When it is, it is for good cause. Generally it is because the decision was mutually made for one person to stay home while the other worked.

There are alternatives to paying alimony, such as not leaving a spouse you know will get alimony. If you aren't going to leave because she/he won't get a job, then why would you leave later for other reasons and not expect to pay alimony? If it is something they did, then that should be taken into account when it comes to whether they get alimony and how much. But being the sole moneymaker in a relationship has advantages, advantages that can cause a big power differential in the relationship, and lead to abuse (not all abuse is physical).

Your argument for how the state proves it was a mutual decision was completely asinine and if that is their standard then frankly it only helps my case against it even more.
 
what are these reasons?..
I don't care about govt recognition... i'ts the policies that are relevant... recognizing marriage is useless symbolism.
as it stands now, many are penalized by the tax code for being married, while many social program recipients are rewarded for being single.... sometimes they can't even get assistance if they are married.
so ,yeah, i think we're beyond promoting marriage or family and well into promoting singlehood and breaking up families.... not in every case mind you, but far too many for the govt to be considered to be promoting families of any kind.
our govt still sides with the mother when it comes to children, so it's not like they are interested in fathers as equals.. so it really can't be argued that our govt supports families anymore.... hell, they support public school more than parents when it comes to the children... so yeah... we might just be a lot better off without the kind of "support" they lend families of any kind.

Some are penalized by the tax code for being married, others benefit from it. Overall, there is very little difference to what people pay in taxes for having a married or single option. However, there are things that would be much harder to calculate without that option, especially when married people own things together. There is also the advantages that this gives the government in deciding divorce, having a set procedure for this thing. There are many other things as well. It saves time and money in so many different areas of our lives, for both the couple and society, including various levels of government within society. Legal marriage also does discourage people from breaking up on a whim, without making it completely impossible to do so.
 
Your argument for how the state proves it was a mutual decision was completely asinine and if that is their standard then frankly it only helps my case against it even more.

The state doesn't prove anything. The state isn't involved except to believe one side or the other or both. That is all. They are the arbitrator in divorce, not an actual party.
 
The state doesn't prove anything. The state isn't involved except to believe one side or the other or both. That is all. They are the arbitrator in divorce, not an actual party.

Yes. So when the woman said he consented to her staying at home your argument made very clear the state would assume he consented if he never divorced her. Of course it's stupid to assume a man would divorce a woman for staying at home, but sure, lets just go with the idea that he consented if he stayed married.
 
Last edited:
well, as we've basically given up promoting nuclear families as benefiting society, the government might as well give up the whole marriage thing.

Just because it is no longer man woman child? You want to give it up? I think the number of families benefiting society will go up big time. They can adopt children and form nuclear families of a bit different kind. The nucleus family has been destroyed by all them divorces anyway so more marriages is a good thing IMHO. It brings in extra money all around from wedding ceremonies, house buying, etc. etc. etc.
 
He's not calling for the end of marriage just of civil unions. This is a temper tantrum to stop gay marriage.

As a married person I'm sure he didn't just start realizing the host of benefits conferred to married couples over people that co-habitats. If someone has a view that the government should have nothing to do with marriage at all I don't agree but it's a valid point. Pulling the benefits away solely because you don't like a Supreme Court decision is petty.
Yes, there was a time when it made sense as public policy to reward marriage as marriage was the center of procreation and child raising. Now most children are born outside of marriage and many married couples have no desire for children. About 30% of income inequality is due to the fact that people marry people in their same economic potential. Government money spent (through tax breaks, etc.), for marriage is better spent on people with children and not on subsidizing the top 30% who are currently benefiting. (Ignoring the top 5% or so who are minimally affected by marriage benefits)

The arguments that the LGBT community had against hetero-only marriages made sense. What doesn't make sense are special benefits that add to income inequality and are not given to those unable to get married.
 
Last edited:
The government is involved in personal living arrangements because they are involved in recognition of legal kinship. Refer to birth certificates and adoptions. There is also the fact that people, in general, want the government involved in these personal relationships. The majority would not be happy with giving up marriage, especially not if they knew exactly what it meant to do this.
OK, if you say so. I will continue to look at declining marriage rates and watch as the majority or adults become unmarried.

Marriage seems like an archaic concept at this point with out of wedlock children and so many unmarried. I think that economics is at play as most can live fulfilling lives without a mate to split costs and provide support.
 
OK, if you say so. I will continue to look at declining marriage rates and watch as the majority or adults become unmarried.

Marriage seems like an archaic concept at this point with out of wedlock children and so many unmarried. I think that economics is at play as most can live fulfilling lives without a mate to split costs and provide support.

It is a changing concept. But at the moment, the majority of people think marriage is a good thing, even if fewer are entering into it. That doesn't necessarily mean that most of those want to not be married. I'm pretty sure that my cousin would love to get married one day. But with 3 children, two of which are adults, it makes it hard for her. It is likely that she may never marry, but it has nothing to do with not wanting to get married or thinking that marriage is outdated, only with her not finding a guy she wants to marry that also wants to marry her. Out of 15 grandchildren on my mom's side, 2 are married. Likely, I will see several more of my siblings and cousins get married within the next 10 years or so (one is actually already talking about it, but they need to work out some important issues). But even those that might not get married it is not because of lack of interest or desire to marry (not from what they have told me), but rather many other reasons.
 
"Waaaaahhhhhhh...since the gays can play I'm taking my toys and going home".

Nobody cares what that geriatric **** thinks.

This would apply if the toys belonged to the religious. It's clear that it doesn't. Now, they want to take the toys away from everyone else.
 
This would apply if the toys belonged to the religious. It's clear that it doesn't. Now, they want to take the toys away from everyone else.

Much like southern conservatives seemingly rediscovered small government principles through Barry Goldwater in order to not socialize with black folk, and Dick Armey found God in order to not boot Newt, conservatives have found libertarianism to mask their utterly irrational hatred of homosexuals.
 
Last edited:
Yes, there was a time when it made sense as public policy to reward marriage as marriage was the center of procreation and child raising. Now most children are born outside of marriage and many married couples have no desire for children. About 30% of income inequality is due to the fact that people marry people in their same economic potential. Government money spent (through tax breaks, etc.), for marriage is better spent on people with children and not on subsidizing the top 30% who are currently benefiting. (Ignoring the top 5% or so who are minimally affected by marriage benefits)

The arguments that the LGBT community had against hetero-only marriages made sense. What doesn't make sense are special benefits that add to income inequality and are not given to those unable to get married.


The tax breaks (deduction for a child, deductions for child care, etc.) are the same for single or married.

Could you provide an example of these tax breaks that my wife (married) and I get that an unmarried couple doesn't get. These tax breaks must be unique to being married and not just the same break x2 since there are two people involved.

Because of our income differences my wife and I usually have paid a tax penalty for getting married.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>
 
The tax breaks (deduction for a child, deductions for child care, etc.) are the same for single or married.

Could you provide an example of these tax breaks that my wife (married) and I get that an unmarried couple doesn't get. These tax breaks must be unique to being married and not just the same break x2 since there are two people involved.

Because of our income differences my wife and I usually have paid a tax penalty for getting married.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>
2014-2015 Tax Brackets | Bankrate.com

Well, there are other government issued special benefits for married couples get that are denied unmarried (And I am surprised that we are having this conversation-why the big issue about being married if not for the government benefits?). Ease of transferring estates, tax free, ability to add borrowing power, extra benefits for military service personnel (housing allotments), health insurance benefits (normally) etc. And, admittedly, the tax benefits depend on the earnings of each person in the marriage. But Head of Households pay higher rates than Married.
 
2014-2015 Tax Brackets | Bankrate.com

Well, there are other government issued special benefits for married couples get that are denied unmarried (And I am surprised that we are having this conversation-why the big issue about being married if not for the government benefits?). Ease of transferring estates, tax free, ability to add borrowing power, extra benefits for military service personnel (housing allotments), health insurance benefits (normally) etc. And, admittedly, the tax benefits depend on the earnings of each person in the marriage. But Head of Households pay higher rates than Married.

And those benefits are based on taking on a responsibility for someone else. The marriage itself just establishes a legal relationship. The legal relationship is what comes with the benefits, just as being someone's child, particularly of a certain age, comes with benefits.
 
Due to freedom of religion AND the free will people have to choose who they wish to spend the rest of their life with, I think Peter King's bill would be defeated from the onset. It's utterly ridiculous to attempt to legislate morality. It's equally foolish to attempt to exclude the rights of people who cohabitant in common-law AND have given legal authority to see to their legal affairs to be denied their legal rights under the law.

In short, those who co-exist under common law and exercise a living will, a POA (durable or otherwise), a life insurance plan or an estate will would have their rights nullified upon their death, and by extension their Social Security benefits would not be transferred to their surviving common-law spouse. And for what? Just because of the prejudicial views of a democratic minority? Because such people like Rep. King are butt hurt over the SCOTUS upholding the rights of the people whom anti-marriage laws deny them to be treated equally under the law?

As as much against the idea of gay marriage as the next Christian man, but their immortal soul should be left up to a higher power, not man.
 
2014-2015 Tax Brackets | Bankrate.com

Well, there are other government issued special benefits for married couples get that are denied unmarried (And I am surprised that we are having this conversation-why the big issue about being married if not for the government benefits?). Ease of transferring estates, tax free, ability to add borrowing power, extra benefits for military service personnel (housing allotments), health insurance benefits (normally) etc. And, admittedly, the tax benefits depend on the earnings of each person in the marriage. But Head of Households pay higher rates than Married.


Tax brackets often result in marriage penalty, my wife and I normally pay higher taxes than either of us pay singly.

Head of Household is a tax filing status for - you got it - a single person resulting in lower taxes.


The rest recognize the family relationship and and allow people to keep more of their own property. Oh the horror that American's keep their own property.


>>>>
 
Back
Top Bottom