CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
12
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:18
Arguments:28
Total Votes:18
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (4)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (8)

Debate Creator

jolie(9804) pic



Marriage should not be a legal institution.

If marriage did not exist - would you invent it?

Would you go, "Baby!  This shit we got together, it's so good, we gotta get the government in on this shit.  We can't just share this commitment between us.  We need judges and lawyers involved in this shit."

True.

Side Score: 6
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 12
3 points

Hello j:

Marriage was, and always has been, a religious institution.. The ONLY reason it was made "legal", is so that married people could get tax breaks that single people don't get.. Otherwise, government has NO interests in marriage..

I'm not FOR a tax code that picks winners and losers.

We HAVE contract law.. We HAVE domestic violence laws. We HAVE laws against child abuse.

excon

Side: True.
1 point

If marriage did not exist, would you invent it? I wouldn't ;)

Side: True.
1 point

I think marriage should not be a legal institution, but I think it would still exist were the government/law uninvolved. In fact marriage appears to have predated law (and possibly even government) by centuries or millennia.

In general, I am against government involvement in most aspects of human life, especially our personal relationships. We do not involve government in our friendships or roommate relationships, so I see no reason to involve government in our marriages.

The fact that we have to pay the state to "validate" the relationship, and then pay the state to leave the relationship is foolish, especially because it implies that it matters that the relationship has been approved by the state.

I see nothing that justifies making the state a third party in our social relationships. If children are able to establish social relationships on their own, it makes no sense for adults to pretend we need some parental interference in our intimate relationships.

Side: True.
Amarel(4987) Clarified
1 point

At the minimum, there would need to be 2 witnesses to attest to the validity of the union and some form of arbitration to settle property matters in the event the union is disolved. These are exactly the kinds of functions government is supposed to serve.

Side: True.
marcusmoon(586) Clarified
2 points

Amarel,

At the minimum, there would need to be 2 witnesses to attest to the validity of the union and some form of arbitration to settle property matters in the event the union is disolved.

What you are describing is legal marriage.

The problem is that a marriage simultaneously is a contract between the couple (my property is your property) and between the couple and the rest of the society (I will also be responsible for his/her debts).

There is no need for this. I had a roommate in college, and we did not commingle our assets or our debts.

The expense of divorce both to the couple and to the taxpayers is the result of this assumed commingling. Were the husband/wife to enter into all contracts separately, own all property separately, etc., then we as a society would avoid this unnecessary complication. At that point, divorce court judges could hear other cases (criminal, torte, immigration, etc.)

As in any other roommate relationship, each pays whatever portion of the bills they agree upon between them, and each owns whatever percentage of the property agreed upon at purchase. For example, if each pays half the mortgage, then each owns a half share in the house, adjusted for percentage of the down payment each paid. At divorce, each recovers the same percentage of the sale price of the home that he/she paid.

Likewise at dissolution of the relationship, neither would have any claim on the other's retirement/ 401k/ pension or future earnings.

As in my roommate relationship, however household chores are allocated is a private arrangement not subject to any consideration (as it is currently in divorce proceedings).

That is how it works in any other roommate relationship. Who does what chores is nobody else's business, especially not the government's business.

Removing government from involvement in marriage would have no effect on child custody and support, which are dealt with separately, just as they are for the 26% of American kids who are already raised in single parent situations, most of which never had married parents.

There is no rational reason for people to allow the government to be a party to marriage.

The foundation for the argument for legal marriage is basically that adults need the government to be involved in our interpersonal relationships. We know this is unnecessary and invasive in marriage for the same reason that we would know it to be unnecessary and invasive if people were to suggest the same government involvement in our platonic friendships.

Side: True.
1 point

What is needed is a detailed, drawn out, legal document detailing each partner's responsibility. Who makes the sandwiches ;)

Side: True.
2 points

Marriage helps towards establishing a stable relationship in which to raise a family and creates a feeling of security for both parties.

Of course the level of success of this union is dependent upon the wedded couple not dishonoring their marriage vows and sticking to their guns by not taking the easy opinion of running like blue blazes away if and when the relationship hits a rough patch.

In this throwaway age it is good to see people fulfilling their WORD of HONOUR and working to retain the bond which was founded on trust, love and romance.

As with all contracts, marriage involves certain legal obligations which are freely entered into by both parties, it is therefore wholly reasonable to expect these commitments to be fulfilled to the satisfaction of both partners.

Bellyaching about having to abide by the legally binding conditions of marriage after having signed up to them is childish.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2 points

If you bought a house you signed a bunch of papers that clearly spell everything out. Marriage has none of that until you get a divorce ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Antrim(1297) Clarified
2 points

It is prudent to be aware of the legal implications, ( the small print), of any contract, including marriage, before signing on the dotted line.

The fact that there are many who make a prenuptial agreement, to establish the terms of any future divorce before they walk down the aisle is proof that there are those who are sufficiently sagacious to be aware of the obligations imposed by law and to make damage limitation provisions for such an event.

One should be mindful of the solemn oath taken during the marriage ceremony;- I ----, take you_, to be my LAWFULLY wedded (husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, UNTIL DEATH DO US PART.

The State has cleverly ensured that the legal implications of any divorce is loaded very much in favour of the female.

This is a sort of insurance against the taxpayer being lumbered with the expense of supporting a divorced female and the children of a split marriage.

WE DON'T HEAR TOO MANY FEMINISTS BELLOWING FOR THE DIVORCE LAWS TO BE EQUALIZED.

Side: True.
marcusmoon(586) Clarified
2 points

Antrim,

Marriage helps towards establishing a stable relationship in which to raise a family and creates a feeling of security for both parties.

I agree, but there is no reason to think this necessitates legal marriage. It is useful to distinguish between the social or religious aspects of marriage, and the legal aspects.

The legal aspects are unnecessary, and support the intrusion of government in personal relationships.

Would you ever make the government a third party to any of your platonic friendships?

I seriously doubt it.

For details, read the statements I posted on the other side (some of which are responses.)

Side: True.
Antrim(1297) Clarified
2 points

@ marcusmoon.

Please, and I do mean please, forgive me for saying that I feel your interpretation of the reasons for the laws governing marriage is somewhat naive, NO OFFENCE INTENDED.

The laws have obviously been contrived by, and supported by numerous successive governments to ensure that in the event of a divorce it is the husband who supports the estranged female and, when applicable, the children and not the state.

Thinking with heart and/or penis instead of your head can lead to a long period of expense and the accompanying misery.

Side: True.
2 points

@Antrim

Of course the level of success of this union is dependent upon the wedded couple not dishonoring their marriage vows and sticking to their guns by not taking the easy opinion of running like blue blazes away if and when the relationship hits a rough patch.

Unfortunately, I think 'running when the going gets tough' is the norm--particularly in the younger generations of which I am a part. It seems to be viewed as a somewhat more formalized, extended casual-type relationship of which many clearly have it in the back of their mind they can just 'break up' if things 'drift apart'--like any other relationship. However, as you pointed out in subsequent posts, this is intended to work out in the female's favor, and a lot of these naïve (young) men will (and do) get burnt by the process.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Antrim(1297) Clarified
2 points

@ xMathFanx.

Thanks for the response.

Of course the other important reason for the governments imposing their discriminatory gender laws is to act as a deterrent to the husband from running off with the innkeeper's wench and unloading the responsibility for his wife and children onto the state.

If the financial penalty was removed I'm totally convinced we'd see a massive increase in divorce cases.

Side: True.

Marriage is not only a religious institution.

The legal Precedent which places Marriage under state licensing status is a man and woman can create a citizen of a country without help for any outside force. This includes donors, surrogate parent, and Medical implantation which already have licensing status in association to them. This one process of consensual or common law marriage takes place as it is create by understanding of procreation. Marriage is a witness state created to explain the understanding of Nation in a way which does not expose a child, or minor to bear- public witness in a means which may be deemed inappropriate. As group of people are described as together united by principle outside of the fact they are creating a child which is a new citizen of the Nation the parents belong.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/procreation

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
John_C_1812(279) Clarified
1 point

The crime of fraud is a much more difficult state to explain in an understandable way to people, so often goes unregulated by judicial separation by cost facture if impartiality is shifted by tax spending. The General principle set by the United States Declaration of Independence.

Example:

Binivir, UnosMulier are equivalence to common law marriage as they may be declared privately as a witness account on couples who are not necessarily sexual involved, but share a state of wealth built by living together publicly. A lawyer is not needed in this witness account as it shares a legal united states with the public and is not misinterpreted easily as fraud.

Side: True.
1 point

Are you saying gay marriage should be abolished ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
marcusmoon(586) Clarified
1 point

Are you saying gay marriage should be abolished ;)

I would say that until gay marriage was legalized, homosexuals were protected from a level of government intrusion into their personal lives that heterosexuals were not.

Legalizing gay marriage removed the greatest advantage gays had over heterosexual couples.

It would have been better to illegalize heterosexual marriage.

Side: True.