• 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?

R

Rinzai

Banned
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
116
Reaction score
26
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
This is an idea I had.

Instead of states allowing two people to be legally married by default, everyone would merely granted civil unions for the pragmatic and financial reasons.

And if a couple wanted to be legally recognized as married, they would have to meet additional requirements, such as remain together for X number of years, and demonstrating to a panel of experts that they are loving and faithful.

This might be a way of distinguishing between lesser arrangements, such as couples who unfaithful, abusive, or married mainly for financial convenience - and couples who have attained higher levels of intimacy and can serve as role models, rather than giving dysfunctional couples the illusion that they have attained some "sacred" status of marriage simply by signing a legal contract without demonstrating any genuine intimate qualities.
 
Rinzai said:
This is an idea I had.

Instead of states allowing two people to be legally married by default, everyone would merely granted civil unions for the pragmatic and financial reasons.

And if a couple wanted to be legally recognized as married, they would have to meet additional requirements, such as remain together for X number of years, and demonstrating to a panel of experts that they are loving and faithful.

This might be a way of distinguishing between lesser arrangements, such as couples who unfaithful, abusive, or married mainly for financial convenience - and couples who have attained higher levels of intimacy and can serve as role models, rather than giving dysfunctional couples the illusion that they have attained some "sacred" status of marriage simply by signing a legal contract without demonstrating any genuine intimate qualities.
Click to expand...

No. Just no.
 
Rinzai said:
This is an idea I had.

Instead of states allowing two people to be legally married by default, everyone would merely granted civil unions for the pragmatic and financial reasons.

And if a couple wanted to be legally recognized as married, they would have to meet additional requirements, such as remain together for X number of years, and demonstrating to a panel of experts that they are loving and faithful.

This might be a way of distinguishing between lesser arrangements, such as couples who unfaithful, abusive, or married mainly for financial convenience - and couples who have attained higher levels of intimacy and can serve as role models, rather than giving dysfunctional couples the illusion that they have attained some "sacred" status of marriage simply by signing a legal contract without demonstrating any genuine intimate qualities.
Click to expand...

Yeah cause what this country needs is the morality police. :roll:

You do realize that there has and always been swingers right?
 
Rinzai said:
This is an idea I had.

Instead of states allowing two people to be legally married by default, everyone would merely granted civil unions for the pragmatic and financial reasons.

And if a couple wanted to be legally recognized as married, they would have to meet additional requirements, such as remain together for X number of years, and demonstrating to a panel of experts that they are loving and faithful.

This might be a way of distinguishing between lesser arrangements, such as couples who unfaithful, abusive, or married mainly for financial convenience - and couples who have attained higher levels of intimacy and can serve as role models, rather than giving dysfunctional couples the illusion that they have attained some "sacred" status of marriage simply by signing a legal contract without demonstrating any genuine intimate qualities.
Click to expand...

Now sit back and just contemplate the 2 responses received.
 
Praxas said:
Yeah cause what this country needs is the morality police. :roll:
Click to expand...
Well, if the purpose of calling it "marriage" instead of civil union is to give the illusion of some kind of sacred status, then I think it would make sense for there to be some kind of quality control.

Basically, any couple could get a civil union with the same legal benefits as married couples currently have - even if they met on a drunken 1-night stand in Las Vegas - but couples who remain together for a longer time and demonstrate sincere intimacy could get "promoted" to married status.

You do realize that there has and always been swingers right?
Click to expand...
Sure, alternative arrangements will probably always exist in some form or another.
 
Only those who wish to procreate and have no obvious impediments toward reproduction should be married.
 
No.

And don't kid yourself marriage has always been a financial arrangement. Marriage for love is a recent invention.
 
Gaius46 said:
No.

And don't kid yourself marriage has always been a financial arrangement. Marriage for love is a recent invention.
Click to expand...
That would be fictitious, the concept of marriage and love being naturally intertwined dates back to early civilizations, such as in writings by Lao Tzu, the Torah, Ancient Greeks, and others:

“Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.” - Lao Tzu

‎"There is no such cozy combination as man and wife." - Menander

I'm sure that more debased forms of relationship have always existed though, much as murder is said to be as old as Cain and Abel.
 
Rinzai said:
That would be fictitious, the concept of marriage and love being naturally intertwined dates back to early civilizations, such as in writings by Lao Tzu, the Torah, Ancient Greeks, and others:

“Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.” - Lao Tzu

‎"There is no such cozy combination as man and wife." - Menander

I'm sure that more debased forms of relationship have always existed though, much as murder is said to be as old as Cain and Abel.
Click to expand...

Until the 18th century most marriages were arranged and the primary motivators were financial or political - establishing alliances. That's not say that people in arranged marriages didn't eventually fall in love but love was not the primary motivator.
 
Gaius46 said:
Until the 18th century most marriages were arranged and the primary motivators were financial or political - establishing alliances.
Click to expand...
Establishing alliances sounds mainly in the domain of the ruling class or politicians, which I'd assume were a very tiny fraction of the population. Much as elected politicians in Washington are only a very small percentage of the American population.

That's not say that people in arranged marriages didn't eventually fall in love but love was not the primary motivator.
Click to expand...
The claim that it is a solely a "modern invention" though isn't true, since from what I can see the concept has always existed historically.
 
Rinzai said:
This is an idea I had.

Instead of states allowing two people to be legally married by default, everyone would merely granted civil unions for the pragmatic and financial reasons.

And if a couple wanted to be legally recognized as married, they would have to meet additional requirements, such as remain together for X number of years, and demonstrating to a panel of experts that they are loving and faithful.

This might be a way of distinguishing between lesser arrangements, such as couples who unfaithful, abusive, or married mainly for financial convenience - and couples who have attained higher levels of intimacy and can serve as role models, rather than giving dysfunctional couples the illusion that they have attained some "sacred" status of marriage simply by signing a legal contract without demonstrating any genuine intimate qualities.
Click to expand...
Responded to without reading any current comments.

What is the state's interest is the two levels? What, aside from a title difference, would be provided to a married couple as opposed to the civil union couple?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Rinzai said:
Well, if the purpose of calling it "marriage" instead of civil union is to give the illusion of some kind of sacred status, then I think it would make sense for there to be some kind of quality control.

Basically, any couple could get a civil union with the same legal benefits as married couples currently have - even if they met on a drunken 1-night stand in Las Vegas - but couples who remain together for a longer time and demonstrate sincere intimacy could get "promoted" to married status.


Sure, alternative arrangements will probably always exist in some form or another.
Click to expand...
This brings up another question. What are your criteria? How would this engaged in responsible non-monogamy be measured? Are there "point deductions" for things like kink?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
phattonez said:
Only those who wish to procreate and have no obvious impediments toward reproduction should be married.
Click to expand...
So sterile straight couples who do not wish children should not be allowed to marry? Or older couples past their child bearing years?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Rinzai said:
Establishing alliances sounds mainly in the domain of the ruling class or politicians, which I'd assume were a very tiny fraction of the population. Much as elected politicians in Washington are only a very small percentage of the American population.


The claim that it is a solely a "modern invention" though isn't true, since from what I can see the concept has always existed historically.
Click to expand...

I refer you to historian Stephanie Coontz', "Marriage, A History."

Or if you prefer an essay of her's that includes a brief discussion of past marriage practices: Past, present, future of marriage

That btw, accords very well with what I know of marriage in the Roman Empire and in ancient Greece.
 
Gaius46 said:
I refer you to historian Stephanie Coontz', "Marriage, A History."

Or if you prefer an essay of her's that includes a brief discussion of past marriage practices: Past, present, future of marriage

That btw, accords very well with what I know of marriage in the Roman Empire and in ancient Greece.
Click to expand...
Thanks I read that, I'd say a her narrative didn't include many factual sources to back up her claims, such as how often courts actually approved of "marital rape" in practice, as opposed to isolated incidents. so it sounds highly exaggerated - at least as much as assuming that "all Germans" were Nazis in WWII.

Likewise, it's been suggested by modern researchers, that marital equality is the human default, and that are more of just a symptom of cultural deviations from nature - such byproducts of the agricultural revolution. Here are some examples:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists

Our prehistoric forebears are often portrayed as spear-wielding savages, but the earliest human societies are likely to have been founded on enlightened egalitarian principles, according to scientists.

A study has shown that in contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, men and women tend to have equal influence on where their group lives and who they live with. The findings challenge the idea that sexual equality is a recent invention, suggesting that it has been the norm for humans for most of our evolutionary history.

Mark Dyble, an anthropologist who led the study at University College London, said: “There is still this wider perception that hunter-gatherers are more macho or male-dominated. We’d argue it was only with the emergence of agriculture, when people could start to accumulate resources, that inequality emerged.”

6 Modern Societies Where Women Rule | Mental Floss

The Mosuo have what's called “walking marriages." There is no institution of marriage; rather, women choose their partners by literally walking to the man’s home and the couples never live together. Since children always remains in the mother’s care, sometimes the father plays little role in the upbringing. In some cases, the father's identity is not even known. Instead, the male’s childrearing responsibilities remain in his own matrilineal household.

The Nagovisi live in South Bougainville, an island west of New Guinea. Anthropologist Jill Nash reported Nagovisi society was divided into two matrilineal moieties, which are then divided into matriclans. Nagovisi women are involved in leadership and ceremonies, but take the most pride in working the land entitled to them. Nash observed that when it comes to marriage, the Nagovisi woman held gardening and shared sexuality at equal importance. Marriage is not institutionalized. If a couple is seen together, sleeps together, and the man assists the woman in her garden, for all intents and purposes they are considered married.
 
Rinzai said:
This is an idea I had.

Instead of states allowing two people to be legally married by default, everyone would merely granted civil unions for the pragmatic and financial reasons.

And if a couple wanted to be legally recognized as married, they would have to meet additional requirements, such as remain together for X number of years, and demonstrating to a panel of experts that they are loving and faithful.

This might be a way of distinguishing between lesser arrangements, such as couples who unfaithful, abusive, or married mainly for financial convenience - and couples who have attained higher levels of intimacy and can serve as role models, rather than giving dysfunctional couples the illusion that they have attained some "sacred" status of marriage simply by signing a legal contract without demonstrating any genuine intimate qualities.
Click to expand...

You want the government to govern love?
 
maquiscat said:
This brings up another question. What are your criteria? How would this engaged in responsible non-monogamy be measured?
Click to expand...
Well unless polygamy is becomes recognized as legal, I'm not sure, since that's the only "legally recognized" definition that I think that would fall under.

Are there "point deductions" for things like kink?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about "internet porn" levels of kink or Marquis de Sade levels of kink?
 
Rinzai said:
Well unless polygamy is becomes recognized as legal, I'm not sure, since that's the only "legally recognized" definition that I think that would fall under.
Click to expand...

Monogamy as a word is not limited to marriage. So what is and isn't legally recognized is a moot point. I was looking more generalized with polyamory, which may or may not include marriages beyond the legal one. I am not talking about swinging which is just about sex. I refer to actual relationships outside the legal marriage, with the full knowledge and approval of all involved.

Are you talking about "internet porn" levels of kink or Marquis de Sade levels of kink?
Click to expand...

Give that I am unsure what you mean by internet levels, yet alone that most porn is fantasy based, I can't speak to that. Kink in and of it self ranges vastly, and what one couple considers tame, another might consider extreme. The only consistent key is consent. Without consent it is not longer kink, but sexual assault.


Also, you didn't answer my first question. What is the government interest, and what legal difference is there between the two statuses?
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
Rinzai said:
Well, if the purpose of calling it "marriage" instead of civil union is to give the illusion of some kind of sacred status, then I think it would make sense for there to be some kind of quality control.
Click to expand...
marriage is a civil union. Any form of emotion you place on that word is strictly esoteric.

Basically puts it is a legal status it is not a sacred or magical word and it has no meaning Beyond a civil union. Not legally speaking anyway so there would be no point in this exercise.

Basically, any couple could get a civil union with the same legal benefits as married couples currently have - even if they met on a drunken 1-night stand in Las Vegas - but couples who remain together for a longer time and demonstrate sincere intimacy could get "promoted" to married status.
Click to expand...
if a civil union has the same legal benefits as a marriage what would the marriage status mean and why would people want it?


Sure, alternative arrangements will probably always exist in some form or another.
Click to expand...
My argument is that this seems pointless.
 
Rinzai said:
This is an idea I had.

Instead of states allowing two people to be legally married by default, everyone would merely granted civil unions for the pragmatic and financial reasons.

And if a couple wanted to be legally recognized as married, they would have to meet additional requirements, such as remain together for X number of years, and demonstrating to a panel of experts that they are loving and faithful.

This might be a way of distinguishing between lesser arrangements, such as couples who unfaithful, abusive, or married mainly for financial convenience - and couples who have attained higher levels of intimacy and can serve as role models, rather than giving dysfunctional couples the illusion that they have attained some "sacred" status of marriage simply by signing a legal contract without demonstrating any genuine intimate qualities.
Click to expand...

The state as arbiter of morality?
Are you a closet theocrat?
 
RAMOSS said:
Not just Catholics.. or even Christians.
Click to expand...

Or even theists for that matter, but knowing that poster 01 that has to do to understand his position is go on the Catholic website and ask what the position is. And if you want to know the reasoning behind it you just look up the Apologetics.

I would say simply cut out the middleman which in this case is the poster.
 
Rinzai said:
This is an idea I had.

Instead of states allowing two people to be legally married by default, everyone would merely granted civil unions for the pragmatic and financial reasons.

And if a couple wanted to be legally recognized as married, they would have to meet additional requirements, such as remain together for X number of years, and demonstrating to a panel of experts that they are loving and faithful.

This might be a way of distinguishing between lesser arrangements, such as couples who unfaithful, abusive, or married mainly for financial convenience - and couples who have attained higher levels of intimacy and can serve as role models, rather than giving dysfunctional couples the illusion that they have attained some "sacred" status of marriage simply by signing a legal contract without demonstrating any genuine intimate qualities.
Click to expand...


So, what, send a video of them having sex to the city clerk?

Right. No, it's a bad bad bad idea. Let it go. People are going to game the system, no matter what, if they really want to. Besides, people have a right to live together in any fashion they desire, or apart, even if they are married. Many married people hate each other, but live together anyway. There is no requirement for 'love and intimacy' to be married, nor can you impose such a ridiculous restriction on marriage.

I'll bet half the marriages out there are dysfunctional, and so you are going to force annulments because you dont approve? You really haven't thought this through.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom