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.
While I agree that the concept of marriage is problematic and outdated, allowing marriage equality is a big step towards equal rights for all. Unless we are going to ditch marriage universally, we should of course allow gay people the right to marry.
Equal rights is an illusion society uses to get the perspective heard! Here is a question: Same sex marriage is an abomination. Do I have an equal right to say what I believe without any sort of retaliation? And if so, why? However if not, why not?
"Do I have an equal right to say what I believe without any sort of retaliation?"
In America, everybody has the right to say what they believe, which includes saying things in retaliation, so you do not have the right to say things without any sort of verbal retaliation.
Polygamy is immoral, no? Marriage is a commitment to a single person until that person dies or you die.
The idea that polygamy is immoral is relatively new and Western-centered. The Old Testament (for example) is full of it without any indications of sin or judgment (e.g. Abraham, Jacob/Israel, David, Solomon, etc..)
Arab and African cultures are fine with polygamy, and Mohammed is a model of this. Likewise, many Asian cultures accepted polygamy as morally acceptable until they began westernizing in the last half of the 20th century.
The general rule in polygamous cultures is that it is only immoral for a man to have more wives than he can support. If he supports them all, then there is no immorality. That is because the functional aspects of marriage center on ensuring all women and children are provided for. The "sin" is failure to provide for your wife/wives and your children.
Polyandry (official or de facto) is what is generally considered to be sinful. For example, Jesus had problems with the woman at the well. It is frowned upon worldwide, with VERY few exceptions.
Leaving Christianity, Islam, and other superstitions aside, the problem with polyandry is generally that one woman is hogging the men who provided the resources, forcing some women to go without support. (Obviously in modern industrial societies that is not a big deal because most jobs do not require brute strength, so women are able to earn money independently of men.) In preindustrial societies women without husbands (or sons) to support them are burdens on their fathers and brothers, or they starve.
Limiting women to only one husband means there are more men to go around, so the men's excess labor (which is used to support wives and children) is available to a larger number of women.
Yes, polygamy is accepted in the Old Testament. Then again, if we based every law off of the Old Testament, gays wouldn't be as accepted as they are at the moment.
No, Mohammed is a model of Islam, a religion that says to definitely get into heaven, you have to sacrifice yourself for Allah.
Yes, but that's in polygamous societies and in Western societies, it isn't so accepted in general. That's like me saying "The general rule in Western society is gay marriage isn't sinful". See how it only applies to my part of the world and a few outliers?
You said leaving religion behind, but it seems like your basis is around religion.
You said leaving religion behind, but it seems like your basis is around religion.
Not at all.
My arguments in favor of adults having the freedom to shape their relationships however they choose are based on the principle "that government governs best that governs least."
I merely used the Old Testament as a source of information about pre-Western cultural norms regarding marriage to demonstrate that monogamy has not always been standard.
I did not mean for it to be any sort of moral authority, nor an indication that any or all moral standards from that source have merit.
I meant by that that I don't think slavery will be made illegal. Maybe some laws are norms, though, like the illegal slavery one as well as the legal abortion one.
Is morality really the basis for law? I thought laws were more about fairness. Morality is too subjective to legislate, but fairness is a more objective concept, and it seems to be the goal of most laws.
I'd argue that morality is the basis for some law. For example, why is murder illegal? What about slavery and rape?
I thought laws were more about fairness.
I don't believe so. I think laws are based on ideas and policies, which are definitely very subjective. Things like the legality of abortion and gun control are less about fairness and much more about policies held up by certain political parties.
and it seems to be the goal of most laws.
I would say some laws. Like how monopolies are illegal, that is based on fairness. But polygamy? The reason polygamy is illegal in the U.S. actually goes back to the Mormons and Salt Lake City. The Mormons announced the actual practice, and the Republican party added this to their platform. At the 1856 GOP Convention, it was said that "It is the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." Polygamy was, and still is, seen as barbaric. If you mean to say that the law against polygamy is contradictory to the Constitution because of the First Amendment, then maybe it was back then. However, it isn't now because polygamy isn't taught as a part of the religion. I don't know what you could mean by fairness other than that.
Okay, you do make some good points, like about abortion. I think I should have said that fairness should be the basis for laws, rather than is. I think that murder, slavery and rape should be illegal because it is unfair to murder, enslave, rape, etc, not because of morality. I'm not quite sure how to argue that these things are "unfair" but we might just be able to agree that they are?
Interestingly, if we assume laws should be based in fairness, one could push back the question to "why should laws be fair?" This seems like it might be a moral question, although one could make a utilitarian argument.
Also there can never be universal agreement on what is fair and unfair , what we deem as unfair in other societies regarding the law they see as perfectly just and fair , take for example the execution by beheading , decapitation and floggings in strictly Muslim societies
I don't believe laws should be decided on by fairness, either, to be honest. If you really wanted to, you could argue that slavery isn't unfair and you could argue that the slaves were offering their services for free. I wouldn't do that, of course, because it's a ridiculous claim, but you could.
I also don't think you should claim that the things you mentioned are unfair if you can't explain why, but that's just my opinion.
I think you are all correct about the basis of laws sometimes being ideas and policies, sometimes being morality, and sometimes being fairness.
Overall, however, I think all laws are attempts at problem solving and engineering a society.
Societies are made of all these moving parts (people, money, resources, etc.) and laws are attempts (usually very imprecise ones) to engineer the whole in a way to ensure the society can function, and thereby continue to exist.
Many laws fall into more than one of the following categories, but the laws in all of the categories are about solving problems.
Moral Laws
Laws based on morality, fall into two groups, critical societal requirements for preservation of the society (e.g., laws against theft and murder) and laws meant to impose somebody's belief system or ideals on the whole society (e.g., laws against homosexuality, theocratic laws.)
Both sets of moral laws are meant to solve the problem of ensuring societal cohesion.
The first set of moral laws directly address internal threats to the society's ability to function.
The second set addresses problems perceived by those who buy into that particular moral code, and whose problems may or may not be problems for anybody else.
Policy-based Laws
The laws that are based on policies (e.g., the illegalization of hemp, or regulations against people buying a cow and sharing the unpasteurized milk) are often attempts to solve the problems only of a particular individual or industry (e.g., competitive advantage.)
However, most of these laws seem to be about practical needs of everybody.
Consider the debate about gun regulations. The US has a problem in that the laws against murder are imperfectly effective. All the gun regulations (current and proposed) are attempts to solve the murder problem.
Consider traffic laws. As a body and individually, they are attempts to solve the practical problems inherent to motor vehicles sharing the same roads.
Idea-based Laws
Somebody has an idea they think will solve some problem or improve the society by solving multiple problems. Insurance laws and financial regulations often fall into this category.
Often the ideas behind laws are unworkable in practice (e.g., Prohibition), but we only figure this out after the law is enacted and enforced. Then new laws are enacted to attempt to solve the original problems plus the problems caused by the original law.
Fairness-based Laws
Laws about fairness (however it is defined) almost universally have to do with how other laws are applied, interpreted and enforced, (e.g., the 4th, 14th, and 19th Amendments, the voting rights act, Title 9). Again, these laws are attempts to solve the problems of societal cohesion and stability, in addition to solving the problem of predictability in how laws are applied in order to improve their effectiveness in solving problems.
Sure, why not? Love who you want, marry who you want, as long as your commitment is to one and only one. However, it must be stated that churches are not the place to go for gay marriage unless said church allows it specifically.
I agree with this completely. Now, out of curiosity (and I know this is a personal question), are you married? If so, does it bother you being engaged in such a legal contract? If not, presumably, this was all a rather large factor?
Also, it seems to me that 'common law marriage' is the grossest over-reach of government power, in this regard. If you are simply dating a person of which you both agreed not to engage in a 'legally binding marriage' situation, the state still forces you into it--from a legal perspective. Further, the laws themselves which are being imposed are arguably tyrannical. This has the potential to ruin loving, romantic relationships for reasons that have nothing to do with the health of the relationship itself. Outrageous, really.
Now, out of curiosity (and I know this is a personal question), are you married? If so, does it bother you being engaged in such a legal contract?
Actually, it is pertinent (as opposed to impertinent.)
I am over a decade into my second marriage.
The first one ended amicably without any financially oriented legal warfare, but the divorce was still a pain in the ass. We endured long lines at the courthouse, completed lots of inexplicable paperwork and paid hundreds of dollars in fees, all so my ex and I could part amicably.
We did not need any intervention to help us separate and move on to living apart. We agreed to part. We agreed on the terms of the parting. We agreed on the division of assets. Even so, we had to get permission from a judge to act on our agreement. We got precisely nothing for our time in the courthouse, from filing the forms, or from paying the fees.
Why did I marry again? Social pressure and cultural conditioning had a lot to do with it. Also, I did not come to any of the above conclusions until after I had already remarried.
Very interesting, I appreciate your input here as it is the sort of wisdom passed down to the next generation that I wish occurred more often (though, I have found to be very rare--'needle in a haystack'). It seems to me, the legal structuring has the ability to intrude so much into people's personal relationship with their spouse (for instance, in the manner that you just outlined), as to create a very 'toxic vibe' from anger frustration with it (i.e. the State) projected onto one's partner, rather than the culprit.
These are all things I will have to take into consideration when I one day come to my own 'fork in the road'--and have to choose a path.
Let’s go way back to the 1600’s where most of our laws concerning marriage were inherited from England. Around the 1920’s, there was no such thing as a marriage license. The states invented them as a way to dictate who could and could not get married for the purpose of making sure blacks, whites, Asians and Indians didn’t mix.
Now Crazy AL we will take it back to England.
The ugliest of these laws inherited from England were called anti-miscegenation laws, or laws that prevented interracial marriages.
So Crazy AL why did states really get involved in marriage ???????
4 out of 5 of your ideas I agree with, it's the "how many" I have a problem with.
Why should someone be allowed to marry multiple people? Other than religion of course, which actually conflicts with your "with whom to have them" idea, as homosexuals in general are more than frowned upon in the Old Testament.
Why should someone be allowed to marry multiple people?
I do not see why not. Consider all the activities and agreements marriage consists of. NONE of them are unique to marriage.
People can group together in any number to live in or buy a house and be joint owners without government deciding how many may be involved.
People (of the age of consent) can group together in any number to have sex, or do so in pairs, or serially, without government deciding how many may be involved.
People can group together in any number to raise their own children, provide child welfare regulations (which apply to nuclear families equally) without government deciding how many may be involved.
Etc., etc., etc..
People can group together and divide house keeping tasks, including earning money to pay bills, without government deciding how many may be involved.
Whatever legal requirements there are for the conducting of these relationships are sufficient in and of themselves.
I see no rational reason the term marriage should change whether a frat house or dormitory or real estate deal, or sexual relationships are legal, or in any way under the pervue of legislators, bureaucrats, or judges in to any degree in additional to the non-marital regulations.
If you still do not see why I think this, consider some previous marriage laws in the West. Men were legally entitled to beat their wives or have forcible sex with them, despite legal prohibitions against doing that to anyone else in society. Marriage was used as an legal method to change who was protected from rape and other violence, and to what degree.
Likewise, heterosexual couples had access to legal benefits (via legal marriage) that homosexual couples had no access to until recently, and that people in long-term relationships only have access to only if they accept government intrusion into the ultimate dissolution of the relationship (if they split).
Unequal application of law is basic to the definition of injustice.
It is in the interest of justice to leave government out of the business of creating special rules for people based on their independent agreements.
We are all capable of ordering our lives and relationships without government stacking the deck in the favor of some and to the detriment of others.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
I would challenge just one Wacko Progressive to find Marriage in the 14th Amendment and where Marriage is stated in the said amendment.