The Instigator
Eav
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Peefer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Marriage is outdated

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 1 vote the winner is...
Eav
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 483 times Debate No: 63011
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

Eav

Pro

Marriage is Outdated
In this debate, I'll argue that the traditional marriage concept is, on balance, no longer beneficial for the majority of those in partnerships.
Society Debate | Shared BOP | 4 Rounds | 72 Hours Reply | 9.000 Characters | 7 Point Voting

Definitions
Traditional marriage in this context shall mean a livelong, exclusive (monogamic) relationship of two heterosexual partners (male and female) with shared finances and one shared household.

Debate Structure
In terms of fairness, we’ll start with a round of arguments only and end with a round of rebuttal only. Which means my opponent can choose to have the last word with a first round of acceptance or open the debate immediately and end with a forfeit.

I don’t mind pictures as additional media, but I’d hope my opponent can restrain himself/herself from posting videos, as I don’t always have a stable connection as well as access boundaries due to different home countries may occur.

Looking forward to having an enjoyable debate I’d say welcome and good luck.
Peefer

Con

Jesus says marriage is good, therefor marriage is good.

Ding ding ding, Jesus always wins.
Debate Round No. 1
Eav

Pro

Round 2 | Arguments only | by Eav | 11.10.2014
So, Con choose to open the debate and will therefore forfeit his last round, due to the given Structure of the debate. Because of that I will now present my arguments only and deal with my opponents single argument (as so far) later.

Arguments Preview
Premise 1: Functioning traditional marriage are built on and promote outdated social principles
1a: patriarchy
1b: outdated pedagogic concepts for raising children

Premise 2: A functioning traditional Marriage is no longer realistic
2a: Variety of Social Structures of modern partnerships and families
2b: Modern challenges for partnerships

Premise 3: Not functioning traditional Marriages create unnecessary problems
3a: Unrealistic psychological pressure for the partners
3b: Social problems for children

Argumentation

Premise 1: Functioning traditional marriage are built on and promote outdated social principles
The first thing I'd doubt about traditional marriage is its moral value. Because traditional marriages relies on social structures that have been abolished to ensure equality and progress. Meaning that traditional marriage mainly is morally a step back in history that would be far less harmful if it would not (see Premise 2) be rather incompatible with reality.

1a: patriarchy
Marriages do allow both partners to work and raise their children. However do they often and in many countries (such as Austria or Germany) receive a major financial support if one partner stays at home and has no income rather than have a low paid job that keeps the taxes high for both. In other countries like the U.S.A. other factors such as the costs for child care might be the reason that one partner rather stays at home than to have a part or full-time job {1}.
The pay gap {2} between men and woman is both: reason an proof that more woman do more often stay at home and why they do so - because it's financially more efficient. The legal outline around taxes for married couples therefore clearly encourage indirectly a system in which the male partner is the more important source of income. This creates over time a financial and social dependency for the wife that, even in a functioning relationship can lower her self-esteem.
Apart from that is it not really beneficial for the overall wealth of the society if intelligent subjects don't see the need or the support to participate part time or full time in the economic system, because they create no values or goods. In 2013 Britain established a law to encourage stay-at-home-parents to get up an work because they found out that it was much more beneficial for their economic system just to run into the problem that it was still so attractive and comfortable for married couples to practice the old ways that especially richer parts of society regarded it as insult {3}. Traditional marriage as it is, is especially beneficial for those with a lot of income (because they get the most from the tax benefits) and wealth. All these are indicators to an abolished patriarchy that favours the rich and fortuned. It is not reflecting a developed modern society with equal chances and fairness.

1b: outdated pedagogic concepts for raising children
Considering 1a, we can conclude that traditional marriage encourages a pedagogic concept in which children are mainly raised by stay-at-home-mothers. And there in no proof that this is undoubtedly the best concept for children. We know about the importance of available fathers for families {4} yet we rather make new and complicated laws instead of remodelling the marriages in a way that is more open. On the one hand we promote a marriage form that has it's historical origins in inequality and inflexibility and on the other hand we try to handle all the wrong assumptions and all the wrong thinking that emerges from this concept.

Premise 2: A functioning traditional Marriage is no longer realistic
In the following part; I'll try to show a few reasons why it is nowadays even more likely than before, that traditional marriages fail.

2a: Variety of Social Structures of modern partnerships and families
Attempting to find proof for true love, scientists in 2009 at least found out that only one out of ten couples was able to keep up the depth of care and affection (brain scans were used to have an accurate feedback) for the partner for longer then about ten years {5}. Whatever people might personally think of true love, it at least means that from a romantic point of view eighteen of twenty people will engage in marriages that they are not longer emotionally interested in after seven to ten years.
In 2008 the US for the first time, had more divorces than marriages {6}. And this trend is going on. Marriage today, the way it is, is statistically neither attractive nor successful.
People living in patchwork-families, gay couples, single parents, unmarried couples, all these people are living with the feeling that the family lifestyle they choose is not "normal". While this might be a truth for some people living in religion-based traditional marriages it is certainly not what a country should exclusively promote with it's legal outline for partnerships (= standard marriage without legal alterations via marriage contract).

2b: Modern challenges for partnerships
There are also factors that challenge the traditional marriage such as the increasing ability to travel, work and live unsteady and flexible. Some partners might choose to have separate places to stay for a few years or months to ensure both can fulfil their personal needs. Separate households are often a requirement for successful divorces meaning on the other hand that this paragraph just criticises if a partnership can be functioning without a shared household. It's a negative judgement and only reflects problems described in 1a.
While science struggles to find out whether humans are naturally monogamous, prefer polygamy or whatever, we can certainly conclude that it's most comfortable for most to freely choose the sexual lifestyle that suits them most. Sexual faithfulness - or better the lack of it would be far less of social problem for all the participants if marriage would not primarily apply to faithful partners. Since birth control and DNA test we don't need marriage to ensure the parenthood for child.

Premise 3: Not functioning traditional Marriages create unnecessary problems
Established trough Premise 1 and 2 is traditional marriage neither something worth encouraging nor something that presents itself functioning for the last decade. We can therefore realistically consider all the harm that not-functioning marriages cause.

3a: Unrealistic psychological pressure for the partners
Divorcing and "failing" marriage is something that does real harm to the self-esteem of the ex-partners. To fail a vow for eternity still is considered as serious fail. People who divorce after over twenty years to find new partners don't get celebrated for having raised children together and probably lived an example live of supporting each other but hate from their offspring and receive an overall lack of understand from their environment. A marriage is only worth something, if it is still a marriage. If it isn't everything related to it is considered a fail and worthless. And that's the way how people, in the middle of their life, suddenly make a choice to ensure their happiness just to be left with the feeling that they have wasted decades.

3b: Social problems for children
As long as marriage is promoted to be eternal and only "good" if it is a marriage that is remotely tradition, children will always consider divorce as a major break in their childhood. Just as children from gay couples often experience their first problem when they go to school and are told that their family is not actually a family, families who deal with separated parents could experience a major relieve if divorce and separation could legally be done financially uncomplicated and with support. The mere fact that countries make it difficult and exhausting to divorce is a reason that parents seem more difficult and exhausted when they are in divorce.

I therefore conclude that on balance traditional marriage concepts are not beneficial and that marriage should therefore be remodelled to support and encourage modern relationships and families.

Sources
{1} http://www.pbs.org...
{2} http://www.aauw.org...
{3} http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
{4} https://www.childwelfare.gov...
{5} http://www.digitaljournal.com...
{6} http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Peefer

Con

Peefer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Eav

Pro

Round 3 | Rebuttal | by Eav | 17.10.2014
I have to remind my opponent that the debate setting was only open to a forfeiture at the end of the debate, not in the middle. As over the cause of the last days my opponent did not choose to clarify why he forfeited the last round, I take the liberty and regard this as a slight violation of the debate rules. But of course that's finally up to the voters.

Rebuttal

"Jesus says marriage is good, therefor marriage is good.
Ding ding ding, Jesus always wins." - Con

This argument is logically and technically flawed, as will be outlined in the following:

1: Technical flaw due to lack of sourcing
Con has presented no evidence that Jesus actually considers marriage as "good". But considering Matthew 19:1-12 I would agree that Jesus was very opposed to unfaithfulness and divorce.
But he also considered the Law of Moses and it might be concluded that he already admitted, that practically divorce is something the average relationship might run into (Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. - Matthew 19:8-9). Though he therefore considered it sin, he showed consideration for a real-life problem that relationships don't work out.
What I could not find is a source for Jesus actually considering marriage as necessary. As he was never married himself (according to the Bible at least) I'd say that would be rather hypocritical anyway. Therefore the actual claim that Jesus said that marriage would be good is neither sourced nor do I actually see the relevance to the topic that we are talking about, because Con has not made clear what the consequences of marriage being "good" is. That we have to be married traditionally? That we have to get married?

2: Logical flaws

2a: Religion as a relevant authority
Con's argument relies fully on the authority of religion for that matter. As this debate aims not to attack people who choose to stay in live long relationships rather than to attack people who think that this should be the case for everyone. Meaning that those who are religious and want to engage in a marriages that are supported by their lord sure can do that. For example while Government law accepts divorces, the Catholic Church does not. In the eyes of the Catholic Church, re-marrying and living with a new partner is not possible, because the bond with your first partner holds. You would be plain unfaithful. That mimics exactly what Jesus says in Matthew 19:1-12.
But as this debate primarily attacks the legal outline of marriages and that they still rely on this religious believes that should not find their way into government regulations, we can even criticise that strongly referring to Jesus opinion of marriage is discriminative against people of other religions.
Putting it together: Legally supported traditional marriage is not exactly what Jesus would consider marriage (as it supports divorces) but even if it would be, that would make it wrong because it's overlapping with other peoples freedom to follow their religious believes in marriage. Still actually relevant should be non of the religious believes in marriage as these religious have their own wedding ceremonies that run parallel to legal marriage ceremonies and therefore everyone can choose to be married in the eyes of the government and/or married in the eyes of his god(s). Otherwise we'd run into serious problems when it comes to consider the laws of the religions on marriage, childcare and abuse.

2b: Jesus always wins
Considering how Jesus not wanted to die ("Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me" - Luke 22:42) but still had to, I'd say in this case God was the one who won the fight and got his way. Just to give one quick example where Jesus did not really win.
Peefer

Con

Peefer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Eav

Pro

Round 4 | Final Words | by Eav | 21.10.2014
For my final words, I want to point out that my opponent has not offered any rebuttal for my Premises (see Round 2) nor brought up an argument for his own that can actually be taken serious as it is solely religious argument (see Round 3). Also that Con accepted the debate structure I proposed by bringing up his one and only argument in the first round, meaning that he has actually no claim on posting any relevant argumentation in Round 4.
Therefore I close and feel confident to say: vote Pro.
Peefer

Con

Peefer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by assiqt 2 years ago
assiqt
Guess I'll jump in here. I believe EVERYTHING we consider socially should be a matter of choice. Not hindered by laws or RELIGION. Which I think causes most of the problems in these choices. Religion has used fear and guilt to sway peoples beliefs and what's right and wrong since the first "sin" was conceived by a Pope. There were homosexual men and women since the beginning. They are not going away. Not long ago interracial relationships were furiously frowned upon and sometimes with violence. Of course this is because or prejudice and fear. Marriage is an old concept which varies widely in other countries. Who is to say which is the "right" or "best" way? Religion? Only reason people are against polygamy nowadays is because of lack of choice and young women and men being abused. Robert Heinlein I think had the right idea. Contractual agreements. Multiple families together.
Posted by Eav 2 years ago
Eav
I forgot @Emilrose. My point is not to abolish marriage in total, that's why I did not write it in the Debate Outline, because it's not what I want.
I personally would encourage to legally change the concept of marriage that supports a more temporary and flexible structure without needing a lawyer or a lot of time to make suitable contracts. That people still think marriage ought to be "forever" is something that creates a lot of psychological and financial damage. But it's not wrong itself (from my point of view) to have a legal background for relationships. I just think it needs a vast reboot.
Posted by Eav 2 years ago
Eav
@Emilrose though I agree with some of your arguments; I'd say its one of the main problems that (due to our modern lifespan) we can't talk about marriage without talking about its end. Divorce is much more likely and attractive nowadays because of that, which means that marriage can not only be seen in a context in which it is functioning but also the case in which it is not.

Still, while I am very interested in debating that here with you (and wished you rather had just took the challenge) I'd like to ask you to not continue this debate in the comment section right now as the actual debate is going on and I'd like to have a fair debate in which I don't have two opponents to deal with at the same time. Just seems like a bit of an advantage for Con.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
@Eav, that's divorce. As far as I can see this debate is about marriage and whether it is still beneficial; not separation and its (potential) financial implications.

While a couple are married, they receive the following benefits:

1.) Low income tax.

2.) Increased pension.

3.) Lower risk insurance.

4.) Inheritance tax incentive.

There's been cases where people have lost the rights to maintain a home, or other forms of property, when their parter has died; just for the simple fact they were not married.

Your response also assumes that all marriages end in divorce, which isn't the case.
Posted by Raytrek 2 years ago
Raytrek
Marriage is something each person should be allowed to define for themselves, I am neither here nor there on the issue, I'm not married, never been, nor do I have any prospects or intention toward it, but out-dated or obsolete? Not at all, it may be purely strategic for rights and benefits, it may be spiritual or symbolic of commitment, maybe tradition or simply for that one fairy-tale day, perhaps a number of reasons combined, but whatever drives people to it and the fact they still seek it in itself makes it valid as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by Eav 2 years ago
Eav
I am actually fully considering the practical conveniences as the traditional marriage still is legally (more or less) standard which means that divorce and proper separation of income and finances is actually complicated and expensive for the parties. Meaning, that traditional marriage is from most perspectives neither financially nor socially convenient.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago
Emilrose
As long as marriage retains its financial advantages, it will always be beneficial for those in (long-term) partnerships. It seems you're coming from a purely conceptual point of view, which doesn't necessarily consider the practical conveniences.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
EavPeeferTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture