• 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 couples have to demonstrate intimacy in order to become legally married?

Rinzai said:
"Intimacy" =/= "intercourse".
Click to expand...

No, that's my addition. I want them to prove they're getting it on at least four times a week or the marriage is over.
 
Rinzai said:
While not directly having to do with children, they're benefits which are provided to a type of union which, generally has at least the potential to result in children - so they're part of the overall package.

This is why I'd venture that the types of benefits which don't directly relate to children are still offered to married couples

Specific traditions, and laws vary a lot from culture to culture, state to state, that's the reason.

Correct, the notion is that marriages tend to result in higher levels of intimacy or mutual commitment than, say, two platonic friends - with children being in the marriage often, but not always, playing a role in that.

If we're discussing the rule, then yes it is futile and irrelevant to discuss each and every exception, since literally infinite numbers of exceptions could exist to any general axiom.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your overall point is here. Mine is pretty simple - marriages offer benefits independent of, without regard to, whether a couple has children or not, so there are good reasons other than children for the state to sanction marriage and offer the benefits to any couple who wants to sign the contract.

If you agree, we're good. I don't understand some of the dismissive and frankly stupid comments in your post prior to the one above, but so be it.
 
Cardinal said:
No, that's my addition. I want them to prove they're getting it on at least four times a week or the marriage is over.
Click to expand...

Will you provide free or at least financial help with the viagra for older couples?
 
Rinzai said:
Legally, it would be considered adultery regardless of personal approval or not, and likewise could be viewed as potential for relationship insustainability, for myriads of reasons such as jealousy, STDs from swinging with strangers, unplanned pregnancies etc.

So with the possible exception of a stable polygamous union, I'm not sure how that would work.
Click to expand...

The next question being is it adultry since it is not yet a marriage per your proposal? Additionally, how long are you using to define stable? If I have been in a civil union for 5 years and we have had a third for 4, when would you consider the overall relationship stable? Does it make a difference if the third is a mate to both that hold the civil union?


I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed.
Click to expand...

So if they are still husband's and wives and spouses regardless of which status they hold, what is the point and difference between civil union and marriage? I still haven't seen a clear answer on this.

I'm not particularly concerned what some counter-culture self-defines as this or that - as far as psychology goes, a kink or "paraphilia" isn't limited to things which involve consent.

Which again is fine, but it just means that you're arbitrarily imposing your morality of consent on individuals who enjoy kinks like rape, child molestation, bestiality, lust murder, etc which don't require the consent of the other party.
Click to expand...

With this logic, morality is being arbitrarily imposed by requiring consent for marriage.

We have to start from somewhere. Overall, if we assume individual freedoms, then the base policy for personal interactions is consent of all parties involved.

[QUOTE [Well I don't know why anyone would need to join a "BSDM 101" class just to do those things to begin with, when I'm sure many married couples have been enjoying similar kinks in private.[/QUOTE]

A 101 class is about learning about the lifestyle, safety issues, consent, the history of the lifestyle, and what a lot of the terms mean, and what types of plays are out there. Hardly anyone enters into the lifestyle knowing it all. Hell I don't know it all. But I know the basics and teach the reality from the fantasy.

I also don't know why any married couple would go out of the way to tell the judge what they do in their bedroom to begin with.
Click to expand...

I looked at it more from a standpoint, not of the couple informing the judge (which I agree, why would they?), but from the idea that someone else might out them. After all if they are going to have to provide evidence that they have met the criteria, then someone can submit evidence that they haven't.


Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
spud_meister said:
Are you then in favour of polygyny? If the purpose of marriage is children, it seems only logical allowing one fertile man many fertile wives is the most efficient way to go about it?
Click to expand...

No, monogamy is far superior for raising children.
 
phattonez said:
No, monogamy is far superior for raising children.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Polygamy provides a wealthier, more stable home where children have greater emotional support. The negative aspects of polygamy only arise when it is practiced in misogynistic cultures (such as tribal or religious communities).
 
spud_meister said:
Nonsense. Polygamy provides a wealthier, more stable home where children have greater emotional support. The negative aspects of polygamy only arise when it is practiced in misogynistic cultures (such as tribal or religious communities).
Click to expand...

Let me add onto that, only in such cultures where only polygyny is practiced. If polygamy is practiced, it implies not only polygyny and polyandry, but also marriages with more than one huband AND more than one wife.

However it should be noted that poly does not provide any immunity to the poblems that monogamous couples face. Cheating can occur in poly as can abuse or any number of issue that couples have.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
spud_meister said:
Nonsense. Polygamy provides a wealthier, more stable home where children have greater emotional support. The negative aspects of polygamy only arise when it is practiced in misogynistic cultures (such as tribal or religious communities).
Click to expand...

Wealthier, yes. More stable? I'm going to need some evidence for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom