• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

War on Marriage

Paschendale said:
One of the main reasons for this was because it got complex and difficult when both partners were unfaithful, which happened quite frequently. It especially become complicated when neither partner simply committed a fault-worthy transgression, but both partners didn't want to remain married. The whole fault model for divorce caused a lot of problems. Also, why should sexual predilections have an effect on property distribution? There's no really good reason to link the two.

.
Click to expand...


Adultery is a breach of contract, unless you have an "open marriage". It is a breach of trust, and a betrayal of a committment. It does real and serious emotional and psychological harm to the offended party.

When two people marry on a basis of sexual exclusivity, as most people do, it is a wrong done to the other that inflicts harm and often destroys the relationship, often resulting in the breaking of a home with children.

Someone who commits a harmful wrong to another, a betrayal and breach of contract, deserves some consequences.
 
Paschendale said:
Better to stay in an unhappy marriage than to divorce and remarry into happiness?
Click to expand...

Psychology Today stated that a whopping 60% of remarriages fail. And they do so even more quickly; after an average of 10 years, 37% of remarriages have dissolved versus 30% of first marriages.

http://worldvillage.com/the-second-...-odds-and-make-your-second-marriage-a-success

Every marriage experiences periods of unhappiness, that's just reality. Dumping a spouse for another obviously is no guarantee you'll be happy elsewhere. IMO people divorce largely because of unwillingness to compromise, a tendency you will take in to any other relationship.
 
Goshin said:
Adultery is a breach of contract, unless you have an "open marriage". It is a breach of trust, and a betrayal of a committment. It does real and serious emotional and psychological harm to the offended party.

When two people marry on a basis of sexual exclusivity, as most people do, it is a wrong done to the other that inflicts harm and often destroys the relationship, often resulting in the breaking of a home with children.

Someone who commits a harmful wrong to another, a betrayal and breach of contract, deserves some consequences.
Click to expand...

And consequences result. A painful breakup? Emotional turmoil? The wronged partner no longer having sex with the cheater? Those are consequences. But money and property really shouldn't be tied to sexual exclusivity. That sounds a bit too much like prostitution, honestly.

I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone ever should be unfaithful, even without a marriage to enforce that. But I just don't see why it should have anything to do with property distribution.

ChuckBerry said:
Psychology Today stated that a whopping 60% of remarriages fail. And they do so even more quickly; after an average of 10 years, 37% of remarriages have dissolved versus 30% of first marriages.


http://worldvillage.com/the-second-...-odds-and-make-your-second-marriage-a-success


Every marriage experiences periods of unhappiness, that's just reality. Dumping a spouse for another obviously is no guarantee you'll be happy elsewhere. IMO people divorce largely because of unwillingness to compromise, a tendency you will take in to any other relationship.
Click to expand...

So maybe some people are just ill suited for marriage. Why should they be penalized for that? Especially when they're trying fit within that mold. They're undertaking something much more difficult than those for whom marriage comes easy. Punishing them seems counterproductive to me.
 
Paschendale said:
And consequences result. A painful breakup? Emotional turmoil? The wronged partner no longer having sex with the cheater? Those are consequences. But money and property really shouldn't be tied to sexual exclusivity. That sounds a bit too much like prostitution, honestly.

I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone ever should be unfaithful, even without a marriage to enforce that. But I just don't see why it should have anything to do with property distribution.
.
Click to expand...


I think that an action that constitutes breach of contract and dishonest betrayal should have more consequences than the victim's.

I think if you commit adultery in a marriage where that was not agreed upon (ie not an open marriage), then you have forfeited any right to alimony, any right to a share in any property or wealth the victim already had before you married or accumulated through his/her own efforts during the marriage.

Also since an adulterous betrayal/breach of contract indicates serious character flaws, I think it ought to be taken into account to some degree in child custody... not as an absolute, but as a significant factor... as in, if one parent is going to have primary custody and there is nothing otherwise to choose between them, the victim probably has a better claim to good character than the cheater.
 
Goshin said:
I think that an action that constitutes breach of contract and dishonest betrayal should have more consequences than the victim's.

I think if you commit adultery in a marriage where that was not agreed upon (ie not an open marriage), then you have forfeited any right to alimony, any right to a share in any property or wealth the victim already had before you married or accumulated through his/her own efforts during the marriage.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty harsh penalty for something that is a) not a criminal act (and shouldn't be) and b) not related to any kind of financial action.

Also since an adulterous betrayal/breach of contract indicates serious character flaws, I think it ought to be taken into account to some degree in child custody... not as an absolute, but as a significant factor... as in, if one parent is going to have primary custody and there is nothing otherwise to choose between them, the victim probably has a better claim to good character than the cheater.
Click to expand...

See, I don't really think it does. I think it's too common, and has roots in our biology. Estimates vary, but at least 15-20% of people cheat on their spouses. And that's on the low end of some estimates. Some go as high as 50%. And I don't think these estimates factor in people who are in committed but unmarried relationships, which a lot of people, especially those my age, take to include monogamy as well. So I would call it cheating on your partner, not your spouse, but most of these studies only consider married couples. But I digress. It's not particularly rare. I don't think that much of the population has, as you put it, serious character flaws. At least not because of philandering. Sexual promiscuity, to a certain degree, is part of our biology. I guess I just don't see it as such a drastic action. It's hurtful as hell, don't get me wrong. But it's just not surprising.
 
Paschendale said:
That's a pretty harsh penalty for something that is a) not a criminal act (and shouldn't be) and b) not related to any kind of financial action.



See, I don't really think it does. I think it's too common, and has roots in our biology. Estimates vary, but at least 15-20% of people cheat on their spouses. And that's on the low end of some estimates. Some go as high as 50%. And I don't think these estimates factor in people who are in committed but unmarried relationships, which a lot of people, especially those my age, take to include monogamy as well. So I would call it cheating on your partner, not your spouse, but most of these studies only consider married couples. But I digress. It's not particularly rare. I don't think that much of the population has, as you put it, serious character flaws. At least not because of philandering. Sexual promiscuity, to a certain degree, is part of our biology. I guess I just don't see it as such a drastic action. It's hurtful as hell, don't get me wrong. But it's just not surprising.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cheating is definitely a biological and evolutionary factor, so it's absolutely not surprising that it happens a lot. I'm not necessarily for legal punishments for those who cheat on their spouses, but if it were to come to a divorce, I certainly think that the spouse who was cheated on should have some kind of advantage when dealing out the property and responsibilities.

After all, when you get married, you are entering into a voluntary contract with another person. If you violate that agreement, there should be some retribution available on the other person's part for the broken contract.
 
i going to come a this thread from a different point of view, i as a person cannot be harmed by two people being married, they cannot hurt me, BUT government can.

here is my problem with SSM, if two people wish to marry, fine, but government stay out of that marriage, do not dictate to other people that the SSM marriage must be accepted by other people. meaning don't force religious institutions or religious people (big/ small companies) to pay benefits to SSM partners, don't bring homosexuality into the classroom, and expose it to children of faith.

if we as a nation are going to have SSM, people don't want government making-------------> ANYMORE laws, than the single one stating SSM is legal.

whether you like it or not their are going to be people who are against SSM, and it is their right, government have no authority to force people to accept it though the actions of benefits, education about homosexuality.

here is the problem i have faced in arguing this issue, i have people telling me we cant have religion in schools, which i agree, but they believe that the homosexual life is part of the learning process of education, meaning teaching children it is OK, though it might be against the religion of some.

you cant say i believe there should be no religion because it violates my rights, then in the same breath, say but homosexuality be put forth and told to children its OK.

-----> both are a violation of Rights.

my religious views cannot be forced on you, you cannot force views on me which contradict my religion, and make me pay for it from my tax dollars.

if schools wish to teach, that homosexuality is OK, them vouchers must be provided.

however the schools systems are against this because they lose students, and this lose money, they wish too keep the money, and have the control over the children.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
i going to come a this thread from a different point of view, i as a person cannot be harmed by two people being married, they cannot hurt me, BUT government can.

here is my problem with SSM, if two people wish to marry, fine, but government stay out of that marriage, do not dictate to other people that the SSM marriage must be accepted by other people. meaning don't force religious institutions or religious people (big/ small companies) to pay benefits to SSM partners, don't bring homosexuality into the classroom, and expose it to children of faith.

if we as a nation are going to have SSM, people don't want government making-------------> ANYMORE laws, than the single one stating SSM is legal.

whether you like it or not their are going to be people who are against SSM, and it is their right, government have no authority to force people to accept it though the actions of benefits, education about homosexuality.

here is the problem i have faced in arguing this issue, i have people telling me we cant have religion in schools, which i agree, but they believe that the homosexual life is part of the learning process of education, meaning teaching children it is OK, though it might be against the religion of some.

you cant say i believe there should be no religion because it violates my rights, then in the same breath, say but homosexuality be put forth and told to children its OK.

-----> both are a violation of Rights.

my religious views cannot be forced on you, you cannot force views on me which contradict my religion, and make me pay for it from my tax dollars.

if schools wish to teach, that homosexuality is OK, them vouchers must be provided.

however the schools systems are against this because they lose students, and this lose money, they wish too keep the money, and have the control over the children.
Click to expand...

Who said you had the right to a religious education? The scientific consensus is that homosexuality is not a mental illness and that sex is natural. We teach sex education in school, and my sex ed book mentioned that a certain percentage of people were homosexual and they had to practice safe sex too. My rights weren't violated.

Religion can think what it wants, but public education is secular. It couldn't possibly conform to all possible religious sensitivites, nor should it ever strive too. There are people who don't think girls should be in the same class as boys for supposed religious reasons, or that think scientific evidence that contradicts thier religious stories should be not taught.

Think about this for a minute, if you take religious radicals from enough faiths and forced the curriculum not to say anything they might agree with then there could be no curriculum, because someone somewhere has a problem with anything.


And yes, we sure as heck deserve benefits that any other married people have regardless of what anyone's religion says. The KKK are strongly Christian and they have religious grounds for thier intolerance, but I don't see them getting any special vouchers where their tax dollars stay away from interracial couples.

It is as simple as this public policy cannot be made to agree with all religions, if you want your children educated a very specific way then pay for a private school.
 
Paschendale said:
And consequences result. A painful breakup? Emotional turmoil? The wronged partner no longer having sex with the cheater? Those are consequences. But money and property really shouldn't be tied to sexual exclusivity. That sounds a bit too much like prostitution, honestly.

I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone ever should be unfaithful, even without a marriage to enforce that. But I just don't see why it should have anything to do with property distribution.



So maybe some people are just ill suited for marriage. Why should they be penalized for that? Especially when they're trying fit within that mold. They're undertaking something much more difficult than those for whom marriage comes easy. Punishing them seems counterproductive to me.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as arranged marriages in the US (barring a few tiny pockets). There's little excuse for feeling "trapped" in a marriage. At what point do people become responsible for seeing through their obligations?
 
hikari said:
Who said you had the right to a religious education? The scientific consensus is that homosexuality is not a mental illness and that sex is natural. We teach sex education in school, and my sex ed book mentioned that a certain percentage of people were homosexual and they had to practice safe sex too. My rights weren't violated.

Religion can think what it wants, but public education is secular. It couldn't possibly conform to all possible religious sensitivites, nor should it ever strive too. There are people who don't think girls should be in the same class as boys for supposed religious reasons, or that think scientific evidence that contradicts thier religious stories should be not taught.

Think about this for a minute, if you take religious radicals from enough faiths and forced the curriculum not to say anything they might agree with then there could be no curriculum, because someone somewhere has a problem with anything.


And yes, we sure as heck deserve benefits that any other married people have regardless of what anyone's religion says. The KKK are strongly Christian and they have religious grounds for thier intolerance, but I don't see them getting any special vouchers where their tax dollars stay away from interracial couples.

It is as simple as this public policy cannot be made to agree with all religions, if you want your children educated a very specific way then pay for a private school.
Click to expand...


i am not advocating for a religious education.

i am simply stating, i cant force my social religion upon you, intern you cannot force a social ideology on my religion which is wrong according to that religion, and use my taxes dollars in the process.

in other words, you don't get to promote your social message, and well as i don't get to promote mind, because both of them violate the rights of the other.

government or institutions which serve the public as a whole should not even be in the marriage equation...... at all...its not a function of government.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
i am not advocating for a religious education.

i am simply stating, i cant force my social religion upon you, intern you cannot force a social ideology on my religion which is wrong according to that religion, and use my taxes dollars in the process.

in other words, you don't get to promote your social message, and well as i don't get to promote mind, because both of them violate the rights of the other.

government or institutions which serve the public as a whole should not even be in the marriage equation...... at all...its not a function of government.
Click to expand...

That just isn't how it works. Marriage is a function of government, and public policy is written with the best interest of society in mind. Your religion could say that only thru struggle can ones soul grow, and support allowing bullies to go until someone gets the courage to stand up to them, but the government still would have to take the position it deems best that bullying is wrong.

So it just doesnt matter what your religion says, because it is impossible to appease all religions, so there are only three options:

1. Have a state religion that is preferred (never gonna happen)
2. Totally untangle the government from marriage, education, etc heck some religions think killing is wrong too, so get them away from the armed forces too. There isn't an aspect of government that could survive and appease all religions.
3. Try to be objective and scientific, and attempt at at setting public policy to what they consider the public good in those restrictions.

Out of those 3. Looks pretty good to me, even European countries with state religion are closer to 3 than 1 in practice.

If you don't want the government involved with marriage because of its traditional role of being linked to religion then look at where that logically leads. Schools and libraries are traditionally religious too, secular universites are a fairly new thing, better stop public education then. Look you can point to any aspect of government and I am sure some religious person could have a problem with some part of a message that it sends.

All kinds of my tax dollars go to things I am morally opposed to, it doesnt violate my rights because I don't have the right to decide how the government spends my money, that is what this whole representative republic thing is about. You seem to think you have more rights than you do.
 
hikari said:
That just isn't how it works. Marriage is a function of government, and public policy is written with the best interest of society in mind. Your religion could say that only thru struggle can ones soul grow, and support allowing bullies to go until someone gets the courage to stand up to them, but the government still would have to take the position it deems best that bullying is wrong.

So it just doesnt matter what your religion says, because it is impossible to appease all religions, so there are only three options:

1. Have a state religion that is preferred (never gonna happen)
2. Totally untangle the government from marriage, education, etc heck some religions think killing is wrong too, so get them away from the armed forces too. There isn't an aspect of government that could survive and appease all religions.
3. Try to be objective and scientific, and attempt at at setting public policy to what they consider the public good in those restrictions.

Out of those 3. Looks pretty good to me, even European countries with state religion are closer to 3 than 1 in practice.

If you don't want the government involved with marriage because of its traditional role of being linked to religion then look at where that logically leads. Schools and libraries are traditionally religious too, secular universites are a fairly new thing, better stop public education then. Look you can point to any aspect of government and I am sure some religious person could have a problem with some part of a message that it sends.

All kinds of my tax dollars go to things I am morally opposed to, it doesnt violate my rights because I don't have the right to decide how the government spends my money, that is what this whole representative republic thing is about. You seem to think you have more rights than you do.
Click to expand...

government became is involve in marriage after the civil war, when blacks and white wanted to marry.

i believe it is blacks law 3rd version

government has no authority to be involve in a social contract between two people.

and it has no authority to force a 3rd party of more ----->to be part of such a contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom