ForumsWEPRGovernment Sactioned Marriage

3 2484
necromancer
offline
necromancer
750 posts
Peasant

I didn't see this in the popular debates section, and didn't see it doing a cursory check of topic history, although it did appear under a gay marriage topic, but only as a subtopic. I miss the forum search...

Resolution: The US government ought not recognize marriage.

If affirming or supporting this statement I see these arguments:
1)It allows for discrimination:
-It was originally intended to be sexist in putting women in a subservient position.
-It can be used to discriminate against homosexuals and multiple partner unions.
-It discriminates against mentally retarded people, in my state you can't get married if you are mentally retarded.
-It was previously used to discriminate against interracial couples.
-Expensive, socio-economic discrimination.
-Discriminates against people of different of religions or non-religion (1st amendment).
2)Marriage is a religious matter and churches ought to decide who and how they are going to wed, the government shouldn't have a say, it should just let people live together if they want to.
3)Makes divorces easier, and less painful on children.

If negating or refuting the resolution:
1)Marriage is integral to tax system.
2)Many states use marital status to help define rape.
3)Without legal marriages it is difficult for government to find and identify people.
4)Marriage makes child and spouse welfare possible in the case of a divorce.

I would like to know everyone's opinions on this, feel free to add new arguments. But don't add "America is a Christian nation, therefore marriage is necessary," that argument further bolsters a standpoint against marriage on the basis of discrimination.

Personally, I feel that marriage is a religious practice that ought to be kept out of the government.

  • 3 Replies
necromancer
offline
necromancer
750 posts
Peasant

The **** is r..a..p..e.

Jefferysinspiration
offline
Jefferysinspiration
3,168 posts
Farmer

I think the government involvement in marriages is to a huge extent. i understand sort of, why, however marriage is a religious and spiritual practice, as you said necromancer and the government should take a step back. however, the benefits are notable. im not from the us though, so i cant really judge.

Strop
offline
Strop
10,817 posts
Bard

I think I'm the only member here to have previously attempted discussion from this angle in any detail, but well done for summarising it in a cogent and comprehensive manner!

My suggestion at the time was that the system needed a bit of an overhaul so that we might free ourselves from this semantic net and perhaps pave the way for a more versatile model of relationships that might prove more beneficial to communities as a whole. The only major reasons I can see (and yes it is a big one) to opposing this kind of move in the face of compelling evidence is that change is hard. However as it stands, the system still holds as fairly direct link from the religious conceptions of marriage to such things as monetary policy, such that this purported separation of Church from state is incomplete.

Showing 1-3 of 3