Divorce should be carefully regulated
Debate Rounds (4)
Accept my challenge not to fight my opinion, but rather to show insight
Hello, though you din't lay it out exactly, I will keep first round to my normal accpetance + 1 paragraph generalization.
Marriage is an instutition that is contractual but also which is based in modern culture on an abstract principle ( an emotion) making regulation difficult. Since we are not arguing for/against a specific set of regulations ( but I encourage you to post some of your general thougts about what regulations should look like.) We will be debating the broader philisophies about such regulations and what they entail. I am not wholly opposed to the concept of regulationg devorce especially where there is a family involved, but I stand against regulating devorces broadly and on moral basis.
I look forward to have an intelligent exhange with you :)
That being said, from your opening statement I gathered three main points.
1. Emotion of love makes regulation of divorce difficult. While that truly is an interesting point, we must realize that emotion should not be part of the decision to regulate divorce. It should be strictly the facts. The fact is simply: When you get married, you promise to share your life with another person, fully. Not because you suddenly do not feel the same emotion or the same way you felt in the beginning of the relationship. In that case, marriage becomes simply and extreme dating period because people have a way out.
2. A couple of laws I purpose would be:
Minimum marriage limit- by changing marriage laws, you effect divorce rates. A 18 month minimum limit would help people be sure to commit to a relationship. It would require a minimum commitment that you cannot simply escape from. You must live with the decision for at least a year and a half.
Divorce investigators- there should be investigators that challenge the institute of a couples marriage. That would help eliminate people getting married for the wrong reasons. Couples that get married to enter the country is a prime example. If found guiltily couples should be subject to legal action.
Divorce counseling- If a couple decides to obtain a divorce, they should go through a mandatory divorce counseling. They should be legally obligated to talk to couples that have gone through a divorce and a therapist, so they can fully understand what they are about to get into.
3. I agree that divorce should be granted from a moral standpoint, however the only way to effectively regulate divorce is broadly. The laws should not be limited to any non-moral circumstance. They should be applied to any non-moral situation, regardless of family. These reasons should not dictate the rules for divorce.
Conclusion- Marriage is a promise. You should not be able to divorce for non- moral reasons. Divorce should be only in extreme cases.
If your goal is to make a number on paper look good. ( lower the rate of divorce) than some of what you said make senses but most of this would only serve to further lower the number of people getting married. Divorce and marriage are abstract concepts and morality is a NEGATIVE, in society. Though divorce and marriage maybe important to you, they mean little to me. There in lies the logical problem with such efforts to regulate morality ( you may have misunderstood my position there.)
Frankly broad regulations on Divorce have no utilitarian purpose, no utility means its its pointless in law. The exception is when a Child is involved. Children complicated the divorce process and I believe that segments of Divorce should be narrowly regulated to discourage break ups while a dependent is living at home. For the reasons that there is a tangible line that can be easily drawn from divorce to stress on children that cause unnecessary suffering as well as effect social and productive life for a child.
In all other instances, marriage is a consensual arrangement between two,competent and capable adults and the consequences for their actions are theirs and theirs alone. No regulation needs be placed on something as subjective as morality. To do so will only produce garbage law after garbage law as each time the laws fail to have their desired moral impact. This is how pointless political bickering is born, over laws with no great utilitarian purpose ( I.E. Sodomy laws) Conservative and "Moral" objectors will always seek to defend such laws even though they amount to the use of force against consensual adult activity. This topic of Divorce falls along the same lines.
Broad regulations add structure and discipline back to the institute of marriage. As you stated before, it may mean something different to different people, but the fact remains people are getting married just to get divorced (immigration, publicity stunts, financial reasons). As a society we cannot simply allow this to happen. Adding broad regulations would only strengthen the public decision to view marriage as a lifelong process, without an easy escape.
While most marriage cases are between two capable adults, some are not. Some people realize down the road that they may have not been 'ready'. Certainly a lot of divorce laws would cause conflict, but as I mentioned before it would only help to promote marriage as it once was in the past. Not a extended relationship, but a beautiful lifelong promise. Enforcing strict divorce laws would ultimately make people question if they are in fact actually ready to commit to such a promise. It will only help solidify those who know where they stand with their feelings about the other person, with those who do not.
" A lower number on paper is the goal."
Pointless. Society is not advanced by statistics.
" Marriage itself is already regulated, e.g. licensing..."
" Broad regulations add structure and discipline back to the institute of marriage."
What gives you the authority to decide what structure is needed? Are you really representing "Society" or are you representing a conservative segment of society that wants to hold up the "old ways" as being the right way.
"fact remains people are getting married just to get divorced (immigration, publicity stunts, financial reasons)."
Is this a fact? I mean sure, this stuff happens but is it really at epidemic levels, sure it happens. I see no evidence to support the idea that is at a level which undermines society at large.
"As a society we cannot simply allow this to happen".
Really, I could give a rats #@!, I am perfectly content with watching people make fools of them selves for publicity. Also it makes the corporate over lords happy to see people numbing their brains with clebirty devorse garbage,happy. The more sedated the least intelligent of our species are, the less they bother anyone else.
" Certainly a lot of divorce laws would cause conflict"
To say the least.
"but as I mentioned before it would only help to promote marriage as it once was in the past."
What was once, can never be again. The fact that you cant sell your daughter for two goats and a chicken means we have already changed the "old ways" of marriage.
"Not a extended relationship, but a beautiful lifelong promise. "
This statement is a bit to heart glowing and stary eyed for my tastes.
"Enforcing strict divorce laws would ultimately make people question if they are in fact actually ready to commit to such a promise."
Easier and safer to hit up the government for taking care of kids than it is to rely on some guy who may or may not have a job 5 years from now ( and there is no occupation that is currently immune from that concern).
"It will only help solidify those who know where they stand with their feelings about the other person, with those who do not."
More likely it will only push people further into the more progressive camp ( as you some what conceded) and make marriage even less relevant in the next generation as it is proving to be in my (millennial) generation.
2: Yes, so why not regulate divorce as well? (Which is the main point)
3: Fair point, however I'm not condoning the "old ways", just the old views of what it meant to get married. Also, by structure and discipline I mean that people must learn to live with the choice, not back out 55 hours into it.
4: Yes it is a fact. You said it yourself, " ...sure it happens". The levels as to how much it happens are irrelevant. It is the fact that it is still allowed to happen. People are ALLOWED to marry someone for any reason they see fit. I just think there needs to be a few guidelines to protect innocent people that go into a marriage with high hopes and end up with nothing. How is it not fraud to enter a marriage for personal gain? ( which is why I introduced divorce investigation).
5: interesting point.
6 (the remaining summed up due to overlap of thought): Again, it is not about the "old ways", but the old views of marriage. With a few changes to the proceedings of divorce I firmly believe this could be. Yes, maybe the next generation will find it irrelevant, but that already seems to be the trend. So what if people find it irrelevant. At least they will still respect it enough not to get married for the sake of getting married. It would stop the downwards spiral of divorce that our country is already on. I know it may be "easier to rely on the government" to take care of your problems and responsibilities, but it's not what it is for. That kind of mind state is what you wish to prevent during marriage. You do not go for easy, you go for what you promised at the altar.
Thanks for this debate. Your words will not be forgot.
To conclude, Broad Regulations on devorse would be cumbersome and complicated, not to mention costly and burdensome for the state. Finally these kinds fo regulations are based on a desire to restore santicty to a relgious practice that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's society and admitted by Pro that such regulations would push it into an even further relegated status.
Braod and strict regulations of Devorse there for are impartical and counter productive in the long run.
Thank you pro, for the excahnge. Feel free to issue a debate challenge anytime you like.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.