CreateDebate


Debate Info

6
5
For the Motion Against the Motion
Debate Score:11
Arguments:8
Total Votes:11
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 For the Motion (2)
 
 Against the Motion (3)

Debate Creator

xMathFanx(1722) pic



The Government Should Not be Involved in Marriage


For the Motion

Side Score: 6
VS.

Against the Motion

Side Score: 5
2 points

Hello x:

It should NOT be.. It's the government trying to achieve social goals using the tax code.. That ISN'T the way to do that.. Not only does it NOT work, it discriminates against the unmarried..

IF the government weren't involved, Christians could DENY gays the right to marriage in there church, and nobody would care.. As a side note, if you're gay, and your church HATES you, I'd find a different church.

excon

Side: For the Motion
4 points

@excon

I agree--also, it would seem to get rid of problematic divorce laws overnight. I am not fond of having the Government get involved in peoples personal, social lives in such an intrusive manner

Side: For the Motion
2 points

I considered saying yes I'd accept that so long as government was also not involved in restricting marriage. If government is out of it it's out of it. No more banning gays, etc.

But the problem then is other necessary societal restrictions also could not apply. Adults could marry babies, or animals, or have harems, or their own mothers. And the necessary married or not designations for taxes, insurance, property, etc, would be blurred or nonexistent. And I'm sure there are variations in which abuse could not be stopped.

The government should be involved because marriage is not just a religious or social issue but also an economic and legal one.

Side: Against the Motion
WinstonC(1225) Clarified
2 points

"Adults could...have harems"

Is there a good reason to not allow harems? I agree otherwise.

Side: For the Motion
Grenache(6053) Clarified
2 points

I don't have a philosohical objection to harems, I just suspect more often than not it gets abused by either the super wealthy or by religious nuts. After you say to men "yes you can" then some of them go ahead and use their resources and powers to stop the women they entrap by saying later "no you can't" to them.

Side: For the Motion
1 point

@WinstonC

I, for one, think polygamy should be allowed--both socially & legally

Side: Against the Motion
2 points

The government should enforce that the law of the land is our Constitution. It calls for religious freedom and a rule of law not guided by anyone's religious mantra, but by the majority rule. Some are trying to make U.S. an authoritarian state run by ONE religion. The first people to settle here were running FROM that kind of religious persecution and control. The Constitution was written to PREVENT that from happening again!

The separation of church and state was intended to prevent religious control of our government. Let it BE!

Side: Against the Motion