CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
But as a married woman, it honestly gets under my skin when people insult marriage, especially with strawman or non sequitar arguments. I feel like they're attacking my marriage.
I'm mentioning this because I try not to take debates personally, but there are some I do not have the ability to personally detach from, like this one.
Marriage and it's wedding ceremony does not require lots of money spending, high cost ceremonies, lawyers, judges, extravagant decorations, bridezillas, greed, outdated concepts, etc.
When you see this happening, there is something wrong with the people, not marriage.
A wedding should be a celebration with loved ones for the decision to spend the rest of your life with someone you romantically love.
Having a legal marriage (registered as a married couple by the government) simply gives you the ability TO be recognized as more than one person acting in one life pathway and adjusting their rights to accommodate. Like for instance, the right to see your spouse in the hospital (to be considered family). The right to make decisions for your loved one when they. can't. The right to file taxes together as married, which makes sorting for both sides easier.
The rest is up to the person what is added, the expensive ceremony, the symbolism, etc.
Look at the Unites States, 50% divorce rate. Statistically a 50/50 chance a couple will stay together. That's THEIR personal problem and their expectations of a marriage and wedding. A marriage ceremony isn't what does it to them, it's themselves.
It's all about 2 becoming 1, the offspring of 2 families becomes 1 family and this is the sort of thing that requires an official ceremony, not just sex.
Why does it need a ceremony? Why can't people just be together and be happy? And why does the government have to be involved for people to prove that they want to be together?
Why can't people just be together and be happy?And why does the government have to be involved for people to prove that they want to be together?
They can be. This just adds to it, as they are vowing to be together for the rest of their lives. This legal vow is harder to break and thus is thought of as an important commitment to someone. If you're truly happy together, there should be no fear of the difficulty of divorce anyway, which is the only reason I see for not having marriage.
My point is that you shouldn't need to prove it. If it's real then you don't need something forcing you to stay together like marriage. And it does do exactly that.
Or make the government force you to stay with someone if you don't want to either.
Yeah marriage is not for everyone. Some people just like the idea as a representation that they will be together forever, its just the sign of a large commitment which being together for a lifetime should be.
If I were a girl, and some guy wanted to get me pregnant, you're damn right I'd want his commitment to help raising the kids in writing, notarized, and legally binding.
I'm saying that a stable marriage is essential for raising children. You can still get married without having children, but it isn't necessary, and it may not even be desirable. The question here is: "If marriage did not exist, would you invent it?", I'm saying that one reason to invent it would be to provide a stable family for raising kids.
If you want to create a stable family for raising kids, then I would propose an institution that is empowered to provide marriage licenses after analyzing whether or not the 2 individuals are compatible enough, mature enough, financially capable, do not use drugs, etc.
In other words, if anyone who asks to be married is allowed to get married, then you have done nothing to ensure a stable family for raising kids. Especially if they are allowed to get a divorce. Divorce nullifies marriage so that you're back to where you would have been if there had never been a marriage.
Are you saying you would outlaw divorce in order to provide a stable family for raising kids?
So if we were to 'invent' marriage, would it look the same as what we have today? Probably not, and that's an interesting topic just by itself. I know the Catholic Church "requires" it's members to go through several classes before getting married, and one of those strongly suggested that my wife and I not get married, because of my atheism, but those suggestions can be ignored (as we obviously did).
I think what you're suggesting only makes sense if you also prevent people from having kids without first getting married, in which case, you're giving this institution the power to decide who can and can't have kids, which probably isn't a good.
What marriage has is a mythos (probably not the right word, but I can't think of a better one) built up around it where it's all about love, and it's supposed to be forever, and stuff like that. You have a big, expensive ceremony, buy big, expensive rings, invite a lot of people, and generally make a really big deal about it. This, supposedly, prevents people from going through with it without giving it a lot of thought. It also means that you've essentially declared your intentions before everyone that you care about, and the fact that they now all expect the two of you to stay together helps motivate people to stay together.
Of course, not everybody goes through all of this, I think because people today don't really have respect for old traditions, but those traditions are there for a reason, and if we followed those traditions more seriously, then perhaps we wouldn't have the high rate of divorce that we have today.
Would I outlaw divorce? Of course not, there are certainly situations in which a divorce is necessary. Would I make it more difficult to have a divorce? I'm not sure. Everything comes with a cost, and you have to decide what's more important. If you make divorces more difficult, then you may end up with fewer divorces, but you also have more unhappy parents, which is bad in and of itself, but also probably not any better for the kids anyway. You could try to outlaw easy marriages, such as elopements, but you can't force people to have expensive weddings or pay a lot of money to get married. You could require counseling before getting married, but then whose going to pay for that?
I think what we have now is the result of balancing the various trade-offs, and it's not too bad. If someone comes up with an improvement, that will be great, but I don't have any suggestions right at the moment.
All I can say is that marriage "being built around love" is a relatively new phenomena. Marriage has been traditionally used to secure property, wealth and alliances.
I am not saying that we should have arranged marriages but I am saying that people should specify why they are getting married before they actually get married and that love should not enter into that. Love is blind, sometimes it doesn't last and once it's gone, you better have something practical to hang onto. But then again, I'm a pessimist and a cynic ;)
I guess we are both saying basically the same thing. You are saying that marriage should be about raising children and I'm saying that love is not a reason to get married because you can proclaim your love in other ways.
Marriage is a legal contract that comes attached to a financial responsibility. If you truly love someone and they truly love you, you shouldn't need a contract. It is implied that you'll take care of each other. Once you attach the legal crap to love, you have tainted it. It's like saying, "I love you and I trust you love me but lets do this just in case we really don't." It's like starting on the wrong foot.
If you marry for the specified purpose of raising children, you don't have to argue about romantic crap like, "You don't bring me flowers any more." or "You don't give me head any more." The other person could just say, "So? We got married for the sole purpose of raising kids. That was the number one reason. We both have good genes, I had a nice rack and booty and you had a nice CD collection and fat paycheck. Get over it. Let's focus on the kids like we agreed."
Is marriage for love really new? Certainly marriage has been used in the past for the purposes you mention, but all of the instances I've heard about are from wealthy families trying to strengthen alliances with other wealthy families. What about the rest of the population? What about "Romeo and Juliet" or "Pyramus and Thisbe"? Certainly love has been around for a long time, and it's hard to think how this could end in anything except marriage.
Certainly our society is changing a lot, and the drives that once resulted in having children no longer do, so we don't need a stable relationship in order to satisfy these drives. However, there are still benefits to having a stable relationship even when you don't have kids. It just remains to be seen whether those benefits outweigh the liabilities that happen when those relationships don't last.
And several that showed a wide-spread and ancient concept of love (of several different types of love actually), but never tied them to marriage, e.g.:
I also remember from my one of my college anthropology classes reading about the Yanomamo of South America, and I remember that they got their wives by raiding neighboring villages and capturing their wives. I guess that doesn't fall into the marriage for love idea either.
Still, many ancient cultures do have concepts of marriage as being a life-long commitment, and stories of love go back about as far as written history, and it's hard to believe that these feelings wouldn't result in marriage when other, more practical matters, don't get in the way.
I think you nailed it on the head when you said, "These feelings of love may result in marriage when other, more practical matters, don't get in the way."
Human history has been one of constant conflict. So the rule of thumb was to deal with practical matters. But rich nations have reached heights that would have allowed them the luxury of marrying for love. The U.S. is one such country. India, is not..., they still practice arranged marriages.
BTW, you forgot the harems and any group that practices polygamy ;)
Are you saying that only people who can have/want children should get married?
2 people can make a commitment to each other without the need for the state to sanction it.
Oh wait..., Are you saying marriage is a legal contract that has more to do with providing for children than it has to do with love?
Don't get me wrong, I understand the practicality of marriage. I just don't see it as essential or effective since there are other safe guards in place. Well..., that and..., I like being a pain in the @$$ ;)
That's exactly what I'm saying. That's what marriage was originally designed for, and that's what it's still needed for. If you're just going to live with someone, you may also want a pre-nup stating how you'll divide your property when/if you break up, but that's a lot less critical than figuring out what to do with the kids.
So..., if marriage is only for people who are going to have kids, what about gays?
The laws are already in place. The person who makes the least money gets the kids for "tax" purposes. They decide where the kid goes to school etc. Then, the actual time is supposed to be split 50-50. But they resist that and attempt to give the parent who makes the least amount of money the most time. That parent is usually the mother. She doesn't have to be married. She just has to finger the father. It's all very one sided ;)
Your original question was, "If marriage did not exist, would you invent it?". I wouldn't invent it for gays, but I would invent it in an attempt to provide a stable home environment for raising kids.
As for the rest of your comment, maybe a marriage isn't necessary for deciding what to do with the kids, which is probably good since a lot of kids are born out of wedlock. However, I still think that if two people are planning on having kids, they should formalize their commitment to raising the kids, and having it be something cultural, like marriage, strengthens the commitment.
Currently there are laws about that. If a woman gets pregnant, all she has to do is point out some guy, claim he did it and his wages will get garnished. ;)
Today, such people aware about such mormons and they got how to handle the same. I have seen a movie 8 the mormon proposition movie at the same topic that was quite good .
Marriage is an unnecessary and outdated ceremony originally intended to formalise the subjugation of women as property and make deals between families.
You don't need to spend thousands on a fancy ceremony to tell someone you love them. A wedding ring is not a symbol of love, it is a symbol of greed.
It's as if marriage is for those couples who don't trust each other (especially considering present day's laws, lawyers, contracts, and all other pointless crap)... Why the fuck are they together in the first place??? Because their parents went through the same mess? That's just... lame.
Not to mention the waste of money that goes to weddings. The wedding dresses don't even make the bride more beautiful - you cannot even really see her. Are you looking at her or her ridiculous white mess?
Just make a big party inviting all your relatives and family and friends, or just the closest ones, and have some comfortable fun (that is usually done from time to time anyway, so...).
There is one thing that is positive as a family. Same last name. So there wouldn't be any fuss over calling the children either Brick or Dummy.
"If divorce did not exist, would you invent it?" Yes! In fact, I seem to have a fake internet wife running around on CD! Can I get an internet divorce from this bitch and get my name back?
I'm waiting for our family and friend structures to allow for tribal agreements and unions that offer babies to be had, raised, and adopted by anyone who wants them, as well as for large homes or apartment complexes that people share and live in and fuck as often as they'd like.
