The Instigator
rross
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Marriage is a relic from another era. It needs to be replaced.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
rross
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 925 times Debate No: 28549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

rross

Pro

Marriage is a relic from another era. It needs to be replaced with contracts relating directly to care of children.

Divorce is so common now, it needs to be planned for. If you're married and not accepting the possibility of divorce, it is for private reasons relating to your knowledge of your spouse or perhaps the particular (sub)culture that you live in. Which makes marriage for life a private matter.

In the olden days, before reliable contraception, marriage existed to provide for any children of the relationship. Quite suddenly, we live in times where women can control their own fertility and where we can be certain of paternity through DNA testing. Marriage is no longer necessary in these respects.

In fact, marriage is no protection for mothers. There is nothing to stop a man leaving a marriage when his wife is pregnant or with small children, it's quite common, and the laws to force him to provide child support are so weak as to be ridiculous.

Instead of marriage, there should be contracts relating directly to the support of children. When couples decide to have children together, they need to set out the responsibilities of both parties for the coming 18 years. If, as often happens, the mother agrees to take time off work to raise the child, she needs to be compensated adequately as part of the contract.
RationalMadman

Con

No matter how common divorce has become (thanks to women now having a voice in the world to abusive husbands compared with back then) it still is a legal binding that will make a guy think much harder "Oh I shouldn't cheat on her" or the woman to think "Yes I really have him all to myself" and have a happy monogamous community where people distribute partners equally.
Debate Round No. 1
rross

Pro

Oh. Hello Rats.

Actually, marriage does not apply any legal force to make someone be faithful. That's still a personal choice.

In any case, if people want to cheat, why should there be a legal, government-issued institution to stop them? Perhaps in the olden days it would have meant something for a woman to be sleeping with half the village and still expecting her husband to pay for her assorted children's education. But nowadays, a man knows who his children are.

Are you really arguing that the government should, via the institution of marriage, try and force faithful monogomy onto its population? To what purpose?
RationalMadman

Con

Because in polygamy a very unfair 'status' system will form where only the offspring of the alpha male of the previous generation will be able to compete for the next because all women will think "OOH! THEY ARE THE BIG MAN'S SONS!" and any offspring of other men will seem inherently inferior with the family of soffspring formign a brotherhood/mafia of some sort.

Marriage forces monogamy because it is extreme social pressure not to create an unfair dynamic in who can get laid and raise their own children allowing less 'dominant' geniuses to pass their genes on to the next generation.
Debate Round No. 2
rross

Pro

Thank you for your arguments relating to polygamy, RationalMadman.

But really, if there are a few alpha males that all women are attracted to, why shouldn't all those women have access to said males? It seems unfair to have laws to prevent the happiness of so many women, as well as that of the alphamales of course. After all, women and alphamales combined do outnumber less dominant "geniuses".

You have failed to prove that marriage does indeed force monogamy. When they get married, couples promise to be faithful, but unmarried couples also promise to be faithful to each other. Faithfulness is a private matter. It's easy to cheat in secret, and so faithfulness really only depends on private intentions. The government has no business getting involved.

You have also failed to prove that monogamy is a good thing for society. Quite the opposite. You have stated that there are some "less dominant" males who are using the institution of marriage to force women (who you assume would actually prefer other men) to bear their children. Ugh.
But actually, I think you are wrong. Even without marriage, women would prefer "less dominant" males for starting a family. Lower testosterone is associated with being an attentive father (1).

You haven't addressed my arguments from round one at all. Therefore, I assume that you accept them as sound.

In past times, marriage was an device to protect mothers, help raise children, and to help men identify their own offspring. It is no longer the best means of addressing those aims, and should be replaced.

1. http://www.nytimes.com...
RationalMadman

Con

How on Earth do "Alpha males outnumber less dominant males"? ... Clearly the alphas are rare, since they dominate the others.

Where did you get the idea I was saying that less dominant men were forcing women who would be 'happier' with alpha males to marry them? Instead, I was saying that they would be happier with the less dominant male but out of fear of the alpha male beating him up for her, thus leaving the father of her children helpless to defend them, she would end up feeling forced to mate with the alpha male.

Marriage acts as a legal bind to say "piss off you physically dominant males to allow males dominant in other ways to mate!" In essence our species increase sin variation so people of MANY talents (not just fighting) get to pass their genes on and create a very diverse (thus dangerous) gene pool to ensure our species' dominance upon the planet.

The fact that lower testosterone is associated with being a less attentive father [http://www.nytimes.com...] only assists my point in that we must allow these men to have the opportunity to raise kids and give them a fair chance.

"In past times, marriage was an device to protect mothers, help raise children, and to help men identify their own offspring. It is no longer the best means of addressing those aims, and should be replaced." This claim is entirely false. From where did you find this? You must cite your source. Marriage was, and always has been, a binding force to make it clear that two people are to be bonded and that one partner (usually the husband) is responsible to supply to the needs of the other while the other raises their children but even infertile people can marry and adopt because that is the beauty of our species and why I support socialism, we are designed to SHARE AND CARE to make overall wealth increase, not to leave us as primitive, starving individuals brutally fighting for survival (after all if marriage wasn't superior to casual sex relationships then why did we invent it to begin with).

Now to re-iterate my contentions:
  1. No matter how common divorce has become (thanks to women now having a voice in the world to abusive husbands compared with back then) it still is a legal binding that will make a guy think much harder "Oh I shouldn't cheat on her" or the woman to think "Yes I really have him all to myself" and have a happy monogamous community where people distribute partners equally. (imagine as he pulls out his penis or she pulls your her tits that they suddenly see that ring on their finger and it sends a flood of guilt through them)
  2. In polygamy a very unfair 'status' system will form where only the offspring of the alpha male of the previous generation will be able to compete for the next because all women will think "OOH! THEY ARE THE BIG MAN'S SONS!" and any offspring of other men will seem inherently inferior with the family of offspring forming a brotherhood/sisterhood/mafia of some sort. MARRIAGE STOPS THIS by making it clear that there is a huge peer pressure not to touch another man's WIFE (being a far more significant social pressure than that on another man's GIRLFRIEND)
  3. Marriage forces monogamy because it is extreme social pressure not to create an unfair dynamic in who can get laid and raise their own children allowing less 'dominant' geniuses to pass their genes on to the next generation.
Thanks for the debate. Hope you one day marry the love of your life (or get a civil partnership). :)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by PhantomJedi759 4 years ago
PhantomJedi759
rrossRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were small and weak, but Con did a very bad job trying to refute them. It seemed like he just randomly chucked points out there, hoping they would hit home. If they were organized, he would have stood a much greater chance. However, this debate was, overall, disappointing.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
rrossRationalMadmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: If Con had made all of his arguments in the first constructive instead of leaving bits and pieces of it throughout the debate, he would have easily gotten the vote. However there is no consistency to the arguments to real impacts until Pro doesn't have the chance to respond.