The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Marriage itself should not be a part of the government.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,413 times Debate No: 22272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)





- Marriage is a personal choice, a religious one to some people. It is my belief that there shouldn't be a government institution of marriage.

- For many people, marriage posses a different definitions, in some cultures marriage is viewed as the prime institution for procreation, in others it is a transaction made between the father and the husband. And in contemporary-culture it is a loving institute between two individuals.
By "changing" the definition of marriage in courts or even having a definition for what is clearly a religious and/or personal choice, you are always bond to have resistance and violation of individual-rights.

* I'm still new to this site, so be nice ^.^


I thank my opponent for this debate and wish him good luck.

-First off, marriage is incorporated into governments to identify the conditions of the government. By doing so, the government can learn what it must to better their citizens lives (and customize their benefits to meet couples, families, and etc.). Since this leads to a better condition of living, this becomes morally permissible.

- Marriage=The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. Even if one were do disregard the law portion, this definition outlines that a 3rd party must recognize a said marriage and adjust its interactions to the couple and not per individual.

-Take on an Athiest/Agnostic view. An Athiest/Agnostic can not proclaim marriage under a church and must instead, do so under a government. To standardize such an action, government marriage is able to all under that government. Furthermore, it standardizes a type of marriage regardless of religion (which becomes permissible since the government does not acknowledge on religion/belief/practice over another).

-Finally, it allows an option for those who prefer to profess marriage under a government. Leaving an option looks to and individuals autonomy and respects their decision under that government. It allows individuals to have the marriage of their choice, a choice that the government must recognize since it exists to serves the people's benefits and desires.

I urge a Con vote and await my opponent's response. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


Sorry about the long response, my internet provider screwed me up.
I thank my opponent for his response.

- "Marriage=The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law...``
Marriage is defined differentely by different cultures, in order to accept this premise then you need to assume that other defintions don`t exist, which is not logical. The only defintion that does persist in all cultures is uniting two or/and no more people.

- "An Athiest/Agnostic can not proclaim marriage under a church and must instead..." Marriage does have to be identified by the church, in fact depending on your religion and philosophy, it is enough to be identified by the parents.

- By not having an institute of marriage in the government (where one must obtain a license to marry or recieve legal premission to marry), the freedom and options avaible to individual increase, for obvious reasons.

- When a marriage institute exists in government (like ours), many frauds and misfortunate cases are likely to occur. When a couple is not bound to each other by law, but by "love" or religion, that couple is more likely to have mutual benefits for each member since the notion of being bound to their partner with free-will and not by the threat of property loss makes the couple look for real connections with one another.
I know this by looking at the number of people who are much happier prior to the property-division institute of marriage.

- Lastly, it is discrimatory to choose one defintion of marriage over another, you can't force a catholic to accept marriage as "between two persons", a mormon that it is between "no more then two individuals" or a gay-person that it is "between one man and one women".
In order to protect each groups definiton of marriage one must get rid of the government involvement in it.

I urge a pro vote and await a response.


I thank my opponent for his response despite the situation. Anyways, let me begin.
First, I must agree, the definition i provided was a very limiting one, yet it was meant to serve as a basis. Observing the various spans of the definition can provide a better definition.
Marriage=The state of being united to a person/people of the opposite(or same) sex as partners in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

-An analysis narrows this down to people only since it is provided the marriage must be consensual and contractual (in casemy opponent felt like making outlandish arguments)
-To my athiest/agnostic point. One can take in numerous factors ie: an orphaned couple that want to engage in marriage,an eloping couple etc. Nonetheless, a marriage under government consent provides much simpler means to engage in the act. Furthrmore, it creates a contractual engagement (putting more emphasis on engaging in the act and maintaining the relationship).
-Yet, the contractual recognition provides more to the couple. If said couple were to divorce, one party of the ended marriage would maintain custod over a child (and be legally backed), would recieve child support/compensation(again legally backed) while the other party would be pressed to do so. Such things provide a more suitable life fore the child and a much more resolved divorce due to the fact that if an individual were not to live up to their responsibilities, the law would take effect whereas under Pro's world, no such thing would happen.
-My opponent never provides the "freedoms present" that he speaks of nor emphasizes how this is beneficial.
-Frauds can occur as well under non-legal marriages ie: an individual constantly asks for monetary items, then flees. As for the love point, it is provided that a couple marrying is already engaged in some feeling of love. And even if love weren't involved, there is a reason prenuptual agreements exist, for the very frauds you speak of. Another point is that non contractual marriages can be more likely to result in divorces since there is no binding agreement. If one party felt like it, they could just take off and drop their responsibilities.
-A governmental recognition still entitles the parties of the marriage to undergo said marriage anyway they please with the addition of laws meant to be beneficial towards at least one party under an circumstances.
-Lastly, my points of government benefits, options, and circumstantial situations can remain evident throughout this rebuttal and can then prove that i continue referring back to my case. Thus you deduce the arguments presented also act as reinforcements towards my case.

I urge a Con vote and await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for his response. I agree with the general definition that you provided as it would make discussing the concept much simpler.

- From many of the arguements that con has provided, it can be concluded that the main benefits of recognizing a marriage by government, would be to protect a child's well-being and provide legal recognition.

- The argument con provided for children's well-being forgets that not only married couples are capable of having children. Whenever issues as such rise up (even in couples who are not married), the matter can still be resolved (and is resolved) by legal-means.

- The recogntion of marriage by law, suggests that certain legal-contacts (shaped by a third-parties ideology) should be imposed on a couple upon divorce or marriage. While if marriage was to be kept for the individuals' to decide on, contracts of the sort could still be made but with mutually agreed on property division formula.

- " If one party felt like it, they could just take off and drop their responsibilities." A good point, but considering the fact that there have been many cases of parents simply running away from their families even while they are married. This point doesn't offer anything other then emotional appeal.

To make things simpler, the act of marriage itself cannot be in the government for it will always insult another groups definition of marriage. The contracts and benefits that legal recognition of marriage can provide, can be and are already being offered for couples who are not married. (Wills, Contracts and Child Support don't require a marriage status).

I urge a Pro vote for these reasons, and await a response :)


I'm very sorry for the delay, a bunch of things keep getting thrown my way ie:debate team, english project, work, catching up to skip pre-calculus and go straight to calculus and etc. I'm truly sorry for the wait, but here's my rebuttal :).

-"The benefits point" Nonetheless the relationship has to be part of the government for such things like custody and child support to exist. Otherwise, as boyfriend/girlfriend one would be required to do so while those married don't follow the same principle. Under such logic, people would be exempt from man things, because the government can not associate with marriage or aspects of marriage.

-The "contractual argument" Again i provide the example of a prenuptual agreement. It seems the opponent overlooked this. The choice to mutually settle who gets what in the event of a divorce can easily be settled under marrital terms.

-The "runaway point" The difference is that under marrital circumstances (follow my first point) an individual can be prosecuted for things like child support when found.

-The "marriage-government" sum up. The idea of marriage under government, as i've stated before, allows an individual the choice of marriage. It allows an individual to decide upon marriage to another person regardless of religion (as well as religious differences). It exists because it allows, it does not take. A marriage under a government does not exist for prejudice or religious promotion, it exists for beneficial purposes. Throughout this case, nothing pointed to the idea that marriage under a government exists for something other than beneficial LEGAL purposes. So there is no harm of marriage being a prat of the government.

Voting Points
-My agnostic/athiestic argument from round 1 stands (tie this in to the marriage government argument)
-My option argument from round 1 stands (tie into marriage-government argument)
-My benefits point from round 1 stands(link to runaway point, benefits point[r3], and contractual argument)
-The Con case stands while the Pro falls since Pro could not provide an argument as to why marriage under government is detrimental. In other words, the pro could not uphold the implied burden(that marriage should be seperated from the government because something detrimental can/has occur[ed])
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vitreous 4 years ago
i will respond in about two hours due to homework and projects due. sorry for the slight delay and thank goodness you were able to respond on time :D
Posted by Vitreous 4 years ago
Log on SilverXD for your response or you'll forfeit D:
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
I took a quiz (3) that said I agree with santorum 100%... death wins.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
Wrong, neo cons are for strong federal governments. Also. they are for authoritarian state governments which are in essence just as bad as authoritarian federal governments.
Posted by SilverXD 4 years ago
@death you have your politics wrong. While Santurom is authoritarian, the conservative republicans aren't. I don't why, but people don't seem to understand that Republicans stand for economic-freedom and letting states decide on social issues, reduce the power of the government. How many times did they repeat the phrase limited government in their speeches ? XD
And don't mention Romney... I have no clue what he is... 0.o
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 4 years ago
If your for the Conservative Republicans (such as Sanatorium) you are.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago

am I authoritarian now?
Posted by SilverXD 4 years ago
I've change the age limit... didn't know there was one 0.o
sorry I'm still new to this xD
Posted by Vitreous 4 years ago
darn, i cannot debate due to the age rank..ah well, i hope someone does, this seems like it will be a good debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's benefits point from stands. The Con case stands while the Pro falls since Pro could not provide an argument as to why marriage under government is detrimental. In other words, the pro could not uphold the BoP.