• 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 marriage and unions be regulated by goverment?

Should marriage be regulated by goverment?

  • YaY

    Votes: 33 50.8%
  • Nay

    Votes: 26 40.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 9.2%

  • Total voters
    65

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
30,142
Reaction score
8,763
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No, they do not. The Government does. That fact you are ignorant and believe having a kid with someone means you are automatically married is bull****. I have had relatives who had kids with multiple women, it does not mean they are married to all those women at the same time, or that there is any legal law saying this is a fact. If you have someones baby you are not married! That is BS!
I made no mention of kids. Kids are not relevant to this discussion.

We're talking about marriage.

But while you're on the subject, what significance does an individual being a bastard really hold? None, IMO. They're still an individual, no matter what kind of social or legal status their parents were in when they were born.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
30,142
Reaction score
8,763
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So...from what I've been reading in this thread there are a few people that believe that government should get out of marriage entirely, including civil unions. Let me ask ya.....if this happens then what is to stop a 40 year old man from "marrying" his 5/yo daughter?
Child molestation laws, and the like.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Child molestation laws, and the like.

Yeah, this kind of means you cant marry a 5 year old.

Nothing in child molestation laws that prevents "marriage". Marriage laws do. Besides, not all marriages consist of sex.

Something else that you all should think about, two peoples contract to each other does not mean that anyone outside those two people have to honor that contract...such as hospitals.
 

Eric7216

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2014
Messages
3,050
Reaction score
698
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You're not allowed to get legally married to your cousin in Allegheny County.

But you can damn well live with your cousin and call yourself married....I think?

Just not get tax breaks for it.
Understood. And same sex people have been allowed to "marry" for some time-just not get special rights for it until recently. That is why I am opposed to government's role in marriage. Everyone can "marry" but no one should get special government tax breaks and other benefits for it. Or allow anyone and everyone to marry, including parent/child, siblings, etc. who want to have a tighter bond with another person or group, sexual or platonic. But that second option just seem silly. End government's role in marriage.
 

MisterLogical

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
913
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yet another time-wasting thread.

Marriage and unions are regulated by government in the USA.

Yes we all know that, stop wasting our time with your pointless replies. We all know they are meaningless and stating the obvious is not adding to the discussion at all.
 

MisterLogical

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
913
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Nothing in child molestation laws that prevents "marriage". Marriage laws do. Besides, not all marriages consist of sex.

Something else that you all should think about, two peoples contract to each other does not mean that anyone outside those two people have to honor that contract...such as hospitals.

People often have sex after marriage and religions says to wait till marriage to have sex. So if you have to get married to a 5 year old you can imply you are going to also have sex with them. Which would still be breaking laws.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
People often have sex after marriage and religions says to wait till marriage to have sex. So if you have to get married to a 5 year old you can imply you are going to also have sex with them. Which would still be breaking laws.

Implication =/= Fact. ;)
 

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
kim davis' marriage should be regulated so as not to exist and never to have happened

same with any others who voted against or otherwise obstructed gay marriage. Fair is fair
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
30,142
Reaction score
8,763
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Understood. And same sex people have been allowed to "marry" for some time-just not get special rights for it until recently. That is why I am opposed to government's role in marriage. Everyone can "marry" but no one should get special government tax breaks and other benefits for it. Or allow anyone and everyone to marry, including parent/child, siblings, etc. who want to have a tighter bond with another person or group, sexual or platonic. But that second option just seem silly. End government's role in marriage.
I'm not disagreeing.

But someone was insisting that the you couldn't get married without the government, and I was trying to explain why this is not true.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That is not only purposely obtuse, it's a textbook example of a fallacy. The argument I originally made is that governments have always regulated marriage. The regularity with which they did so is entirely irrelevant. Pretending that regulation of marriage applied to 1% of the population? That's just silly. Serfs dealt with the law more often than anybody else in early Europe, so how could it have possibly been a small minority of people who only deal with the regulation of marriage? Your assertion falls flat on its face. Quit moving the goal posts.

In what way?

I've already explained why it is irrelevant above.

Quit creating strawman arguments so that you can knock them down. I stated that governments have always regulated marriage. Whether they did so for a majority or a minority of people is irrelevant to the claims I have made. Your ridiculous contention that they did this to a minority of the population is laughable considering inheritance laws, property laws, applied to most of the country's population (the serfs). It's even more ridiculous when considering the inclusion of marriages in censuses, as well as property laws.

You're taking a case in history where the right was reserved, but not necessarily exercised, and using that as precedent to show that the government should have a say in the marriage of all people. That's quite a leap. Further, and according to what I've seen, at most what the government did is merely recognize the existence of a marriage. They did not have the power to decide that a marriage occurred as the marriage itself was done by the spouses, not the state. So before the 1500s there was not even the recognition of the marriage by the state, and after the 15th century it was merely the recognition of the marriage, not even carrying it out (which is the case today where the state must approve of the person who carried out the marriage, or acknowledged that it took place).
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
60,617
Reaction score
41,792
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Why or why not?

Absolutely

At minimum, we need legal processes to deal with:
property
custody of children
inheritance
a sick family member (which is a pandoras box of its own)
various government benefits
medical insurance
legal rights in court (the widow or widower can sue on behalf of their spouse if an accidental death, etc)

the legal recognition of marriage makes those things possible.
 

MisterLogical

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
913
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Absolutely

At minimum, we need legal processes to deal with:
property
custody of children
inheritance
a sick family member (which is a pandoras box of its own)
various government benefits
medical insurance
legal rights in court (the widow or widower can sue on behalf of their spouse if an accidental death, etc)

the legal recognition of marriage makes those things possible.

Once again they have laws that deal with all of those things OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE LAW, which once again makes this argument completely irrelevant.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
60,617
Reaction score
41,792
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Once again they have laws that deal with all of those things OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE LAW, which once again makes this argument completely irrelevant.

There are ways yes, but they are not the optimal method and marriage is a more optimal and efficient way to handle it. That alone gives the government interest in this area of life.
 

MisterLogical

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
913
Reaction score
97
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
There are ways yes, but they are not the optimal method and marriage is a more optimal and efficient way to handle it. That alone gives the government interest in this area of life.

Marriage is not optimal. Since people get divorced all the time.
 

avatar

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
1,462
Reaction score
488
Location
USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
No one said anything about getting rid of the word marriage, I dont think. The topic title is about govt regulation of marriage.

And government has been involved with marriage for centuries. How do you get rid of thousands of laws?
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
58,668
Reaction score
22,835
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I just don't understand those who want to get rid of marriage being a government recognized entity, with government officials regulating the forms and ensuring people meet certain requirements. Our world is complicated and filled with people that want to steal our identities and even families willing to screw other family members over for all sorts of reasons, and on the flip side we have to provide more and more paperwork for everything. Marriage is one of the least complicated and most efficient pieces of paperwork adults have. It takes weeks of gathering paperwork to buy a house, months for some people. It take about half an hour to get the paperwork and another half hour to actually get bare signatures and return the paperwork to get married.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,038
Reaction score
56,566
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
And government has been involved with marriage for centuries. How do you get rid of thousands of laws?

Like what? Which ones? How hard is it to remove restrictions? Or say that now, people must contract privately for certain benefits, privileges, formal recognition of relationships, etc?

It's also silly to imply, if you did so, that all those laws were the same for centuries. They definitely were not and have been changed, added, removed, all along.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
99,038
Reaction score
56,566
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I just don't understand those who want to get rid of marriage being a government recognized entity, with government officials regulating the forms and ensuring people meet certain requirements. Our world is complicated and filled with people that want to steal our identities and even families willing to screw other family members over for all sorts of reasons, and on the flip side we have to provide more and more paperwork for everything. Marriage is one of the least complicated and most efficient pieces of paperwork adults have. It takes weeks of gathering paperwork to buy a house, months for some people. It take about half an hour to get the paperwork and another half hour to actually get bare signatures and return the paperwork to get married.

You know, maybe if it was 'more work,' people might even take it more seriously and stick with it. Be more committed or wait longer until they were more assured of the relationship. Easier is not necessarily better. I have no interest in denying people anything. I just prefer not to see the govt involved where it doesnt have to be. It's so entrenched now that govt-recognized marriage isnt going anywhere but that doesnt mean it should have been or should be. It just 'is.'
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
And government has been involved with marriage for centuries. How do you get rid of thousands of laws?

I believe it's usually done with a pen.
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
58,668
Reaction score
22,835
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
You know, maybe if it was 'more work,' people might even take it more seriously and stick with it. Be more committed or wait longer until they were more assured of the relationship. Easier is not necessarily better. I have no interest in denying people anything. I just prefer not to see the govt involved where it doesnt have to be. It's so entrenched now that govt-recognized marriage isnt going anywhere but that doesnt mean it should have been or should be. It just 'is.'

I don't personally have a problem with people dissolving their marriages, which in reality is much better than simply being together in a person relationship and having to dissolve it.

And the government does have a place in this. They are recognizing the relationships as legal. They are able to provide a single document that takes less than a half hour for most people to get, and generally costs $100 or less, and is probably the most efficient government entity/institution we have, which generally works for the majority of people who enter into it. If it were a purely civil arrangement, private contract, it would be dozens if not hundreds of documents, paperwork, that takes at least days, if not weeks to get together, and costs hundreds to thousands of dollars to really work. It would also still have to be established with the government in some way if going to be used to recognize legal kinship, since they are who establish legal kinship recognition (hence why birth certificates come from the government as well).
 
Top Bottom