• 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
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).

Like I said, I can see advantages in it being a real, time-consuming and considered process. Heck, that's what the Catholic Church still does, but with regards to the commitment, rather than the legal aspects. I dont care if it's harder or more work. No one said getting married should be 'easy.' And legal offices would be happy to provide plenty of 'packages' for those desiring a marriage contract.
 
Like I said, I can see advantages in it being a real, time-consuming and considered process. Heck, that's what the Catholic Church still does, but with regards to the commitment, rather than the legal aspects. I dont care if it's harder or more work. No one said getting married should be 'easy.' And legal offices would be happy to provide plenty of 'packages' for those desiring a marriage contract.

Legal recognition of a relationship, of marriage should be extremely easy for everyone. There is no reason to make legal paperwork hard.
 
Marriage has always been regulated by governments. It has been regulated by feudal governments, theocratic governments, modern governments etc. Today, it is regulated by mostly secularized governments. That has pissed off many religious folks but c'est la vie.

Your signature - is it "where love is absent, trouble rules"?
 
Marriage is not optimal. Since people get divorced all the time.

And businesses fail all the time, does that mean that businesses should not have the legal protections of being incorporated?
 
And businesses fail all the time, does that mean that businesses should not have the legal protections of being incorporated?

So you are saying that the Government should own all businesses and you dont believe in private business?
 
So you are saying that the Government should own all businesses and you dont believe in private business?

The government doesn't own any marriages. There is less government influence in marriage than there is in business.
 
So you are saying that the Government should own all businesses and you dont believe in private business?

Does government OWN all marriages? Licensing, and providing legal protections does not mean that the government OWNS either.

If I get a LLC, I get some legal protections for my business.It doesn't mean that the government owns my business. If I get a marriage license, I get some legal protections for my new family unit.
 
Does government OWN all marriages? Licensing, and providing legal protections does not mean that the government OWNS either.

If I get a LLC, I get some legal protections for my business.It doesn't mean that the government owns my business. If I get a marriage license, I get some legal protections for my new family unit.

The discussion is if the goverment should be able to regulate MARRIAGE, which right now it does and it can be seen in your taxes. So any legal marriage are regulated by goverment. If we say that they can no longer regulate marriage that means only private organizations can perform marriages, and the goverment no longer effects if they are legal or not. They are just something you can do on your own time, but goverment has no influence on who can, and if you get tax cuts for it. If that was the case any business not created by the goverment would be considered an illegal franchise.
 
The discussion is if the goverment should be able to regulate MARRIAGE, which right now it does and it can be seen in your taxes. So any legal marriage are regulated by goverment. If you are saying that we apply this to business you are stating you want all businesses to be owned by goverment, not private organizations ever. Is that what you are fighting for? If we say that they can no longer regulate marriage that means only private organizations can perform marriages, and the goverment no longer effects if they are legal or not. They are just something you can do on your own time, but goverment has no influence on who can, and if you get tax cuts for it. If that was the case any business not created by the goverment would be considered an illegal franchise.

And all businesses are regulated by the government too, that doesn't mean that the government owns all businesses. Just like all legal civil marriages are regulated by the government, that desn't mean that the government has anything to do the the actual marriage.
 
Legal recognition of a relationship, of marriage should be extremely easy for everyone. There is no reason to make legal paperwork hard.

Why? Who says?

And once sorted out, it may not be that hard, like I said, there would be 'packages' for people to choose from. I'm sure that legal niche would be happily filled.

More consideration into the implications of any "legalized' relationship is a very positive thing IMO. Just signing a piece of paper and going to Vegas/immediate wedding has not really benefited many many people in many many marriages in the long run.
 
Why? Who says?

And once sorted out, it may not be that hard, like I said, there would be 'packages' for people to choose from. I'm sure that legal niche would be happily filled.

More consideration into the implications of any "legalized' relationship is a very positive thing IMO. Just signing a piece of paper and going to Vegas/immediate wedding has not really benefited many many people in many many marriages in the long run.

Why shouldn't it be easy and efficient? There is no reason that we shouldn't allow people to have the marriages they want, even if those are short. It would be no different than if they had to go through all the crap to get a "private" marriage. People would still get divorced, still breakup, still end those contracts.
 
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).

Many contracts don't involve the govt, no need for them to be involved here except for when something goes to court.
 
Many contracts don't involve the govt, no need for them to be involved here except for when something goes to court.

Marriage is much more than a contract. All legal relationship paperwork involves the government, and that is what marriage is.

I don't provide contracts to prove I'm legally related to people. I provide birth certificates and my marriage license.
 
Why shouldn't it be easy and efficient? There is no reason that we shouldn't allow people to have the marriages they want, even if those are short. It would be no different than if they had to go through all the crap to get a "private" marriage. People would still get divorced, still breakup, still end those contracts.

I thought I gave my opinion on that already, pretty clearly.

I'm not saying restrict marriage. I argue why it should be 'easy?' You think so, but I see the positives in making it a more considered and personally formalized process. The damage of divorce on kids and society is also pretty apparent. More up front consideration might prevent some of that.
 
I thought I gave my opinion on that already, pretty clearly.

I'm not saying restrict marriage. I argue why it should be 'easy?' You think so, but I see the positives in making it a more considered and personally formalized process. The damage of divorce on kids and society is also pretty apparent. More up front consideration might prevent some of that.

Breakups will happen. If you make marriage harder on people to enter into, they simply will stop getting married. They won't stop being together, they won't stop having children, they won't stop being in more unstable relationships. They will simply avoid the tough part, getting legal recognition, which would be bad overall. There is nothing about marriage that truly harms society. The breakup can harm society or others, but this is true whether there is a legal marriage in place or simply them being together.
 
Breakups will happen. If you make marriage harder on people to enter into, they simply will stop getting married. They won't stop being together, they won't stop having children, they won't stop being in more unstable relationships. They will simply avoid the tough part, getting legal recognition, which would be bad overall. There is nothing about marriage that truly harms society. The breakup can harm society or others, but this is true whether there is a legal marriage in place or simply them being together.

Who cares if they stop getting married? Tons of people have families and dont do so now. However if they want the legal protections that come with marriage...*or any others* for themselves or their kids, relatives, etc....then they still have that choice.

And yes, breakups happen no matter what. But maybe a 'relationship' will last longer and be a more reliable committment if the implications and realities of that commitment, beyond 'feelings', are investigated and considered more fully before permanently (sort of) doing so.
 
Who cares if they stop getting married? Tons of people have families and dont do so now. However if they want the legal protections that come with marriage...*or any others* for themselves or their kids, relatives, etc....then they still have that choice.

And yes, breakups happen no matter what. But maybe a 'relationship' will last longer and be a more reliable committment if the implications and realities of that commitment, beyond 'feelings', are investigated and considered more fully before permanently (sort of) doing so.

And getting those legal protections should be easy. Why should they be hard? I don't understand. Making getting those legal protections for your family/spouse hard doesn't prevent those things like damage to children from divorce or problems to society from relationships going to crap.

The only thing that makes people more committed to their relationship is their personal feelings about their relationship and how important it is to them, not how hard you make it to enter into it, get legal protections.
 
And getting those legal protections should be easy. Why should they be hard? I don't understand. Making getting those legal protections for your family/spouse hard doesn't prevent those things like damage to children from divorce or problems to society from relationships going to crap.

The only thing that makes people more committed to their relationship is their personal feelings about their relationship and how important it is to them, not how hard you make it to enter into it, get legal protections.

I dont care if it's hard. Who says things worth having or worth valuing are easy? That's my point...people may just make their committments too casually if it's easy to do them.

Not sure what part of 'I dont care if it's hard' is hard to understand? I said that I'm sure legal offices would create packages of contracts and consents and privileges and legal recognitions for people. If it's too hard for people to review and understand and decide on them then that's too bad. Maybe they shouldnt have kids then, that's for sure.
 
I dont care if it's hard. Who says things worth having or worth valuing are easy? That's my point...people may just make their committments too casually if it's easy to do them.

Not sure what part of 'I dont care if it's hard' is hard to understand? I said that I'm sure legal offices would create packages of contracts and consents and privileges and legal recognitions for people. If it's too hard for people to review and understand and decide on them then that's too bad. Maybe they shouldnt have kids then, that's for sure.

You don't know that someone shouldn't have kids just because they don't want to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars to protect their relationship. They could be more committed than the majority of people willing to spend that amount of money, not to mention time. There are people who never marry who have kids and raise those kids to adulthood just fine together without ever having that legal marriage protection. But forcing others to do so just because they might later decide to divorce, split up if it is "too easy" is just asinine. It doesn't solve any issues.
 
You don't know that someone shouldn't have kids just because they don't want to spend hundreds to thousands of dollars to protect their relationship. They could be more committed than the majority of people willing to spend that amount of money, not to mention time. There are people who never marry who have kids and raise those kids to adulthood just fine together without ever having that legal marriage protection. But forcing others to do so just because they might later decide to divorce, split up if it is "too easy" is just asinine. It doesn't solve any issues.

Who says that those legal 'packages' will cost that much? Please, it will be very very competitive.

And if you cant afford a few hundred bucks in legal fees...you cant afford a kid. But that never stops anyone now, does it? People have kids they cant afford all the time, married or not. Not to mention that the father and the mother already have legal rights, protections, and kinship recognition to the kid without marriage.
 
Who says that those legal 'packages' will cost that much? Please, it will be very very competitive.

And if you cant afford a few hundred bucks in legal fees...you cant afford a kid. But that never stops anyone now, does it? People have kids they cant afford all the time, married or not. Not to mention that the father and the mother already have legal rights, protections, and kinship recognition to the kid without marriage.

You shouldn't have to spend a few hundred bucks on legal fees though just to set up something that we have proven for the last hundred or so years only requires less than $100. Why? Because someone like you wants to make it harder? People don't just stop having children because they can't get married. Reality tells us this.
 
I believe it's usually done with a pen.

At the current rate of change by congress let's say thousands of laws in thousands of years.
 
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.

Surviving spouse for SS.
Joint state income tax.
Joint federal income tax.
The legality of foreign marriages in this country
The legality of any marriage from another state
Cobra elegibality
And since this list goes into the thousands, one more in lump sum.....over 270 provisions dealing with current and retired federal employees, member of the armed services, retired judges and elected officials.

Did you know that if you aren't "married" that you can't even make medical decisions for a partner who is unable to make decisions for themselves.

The word married is a legal contract. What do you want to do, just change it to another word?
 
Back
Top Bottom