The Instigator
Sckooma
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
liamg
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Marriage should be privatized

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 371 times Debate No: 41091
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Sckooma

Pro

I am for the stance that government has no business being involved in the personal relationship of two adults. Marriage came from the religious arena, and now a marriage isn't even valid until the state sanctions it. What a gross cross of church and state. I move that we get rid of the boiler plate, cookie cutter, one marriage fits all marriage license. No more 50/50 no-fault nuptials. When you and your fianc"e decide to get married you have a choice...either get married at your church, and the person that has the power to sanction a marriage is the pastor/minister. Or if you want to enter into a legal agreement, you and your fianc"e sit down with your lawyer and work out every detail. This way you are marrying on YOUR terms, not the government's terms, which is a big reason the divorce rate is 50%. If you wanted to go into business with someone, you can sign the articles of incorporation and then you are official owners, regardless of sexual orientation. This would eliminate the gay-marriage issue, by taking it out of the public and back into the couple's private life where it belongs. Also if there is a same sex couple, they would be able to file their taxes jointly, be on the same health insurance policy, and be able to list their partner as a beneficiary. The law will be changed to anyone that lives in your household, will be eligible for the previous perks you normally received being married. Rather than marital status, it will be changed to people in the household. Government meddling in your personal relationships should be last thing you want the state to be involved in. It is not the state's job to tell you what you can or can't do in the bedroom, in your relationships (with the exception of violence), or who you can voluntarily associate with. Any nuptial agreements that the couple arranges prior to their wedding, will be updated once a year with their tax return. The update will consist of division of pre-marital and post-marital assets, if marriage terminates, who pays for what regarding children...child support will be specific i.e. tuition, clothing, and health insurance while the other parents is responsible for room, board, food, recreation etc. as well as custody if the marriage terminates. This planning is essentially the equivalent of preparing a Will. If this happens (divorce), here's our plan.
liamg

Con

I will be arguing that marriage should not be privatized. The civil institution of marriage has existed for hundreds of years, and is neither connected nor restricted by religious institutions and procedures. The United States recognizes that marriage is a civil right and therefore must be protected and regulated by the state. The solution to including gay marriage should not be privatizing marriage, but should be continual expansion of state recognition. The civil institution of marriage affords couples thousands of civil, financial and social benefits. It is essential that it remains a government institution.
Debate Round No. 1
Sckooma

Pro

Marriage originated in history through religious tradition, not through the state. The state only has had a vested interest in people's marriages for the last couple hundred years. Also marriage is not a "right". In this country, people love to throw that word around...and they pretty much are saying it as a replacement for the word "entitled", we are not entitled to marriage nor is it mentioned in the Bill of Rights...let alone the US Constitution. The founding fathers were planning a libertarian framework for this country, structuring gov't to be minimally invasive in the private lives of citizens. I refused to believe that with this planning in mind they stopped sort to making two people who are having a relationship, register their relationship with the state. Talk about invasive, not to mention oversteps the seperation of church and state since marriage back then was strictly done in churches. The state has now taken a religious tradition and took it over, making it so the state is the only approving authority for matrimony. Hypothetically, if marriage didn't exist......would you invent it?? Would you look t your fianc"e and say "Baby I love you so much, I want to spend my life with you...so we have to get the gov't involved, and lawyers, and judges...we can't just share this relationship among ourselves. If you and your fianc"e choose do legal work, ten you both sit down with your attorney, and spell out what the nu of its ptial contracts will cover, rather than signing a cookie cutter marriage license that splits everything 50/50 and it's No Fault. Being that almost every marriage, someone is always bringing more to the table than the other (asymmetrical marriage). This means they can file for divorce whenever they want, not have to say why, and they would be entitled to half of the assets. the marriage laws nowadays actually incentivizes divorce making in profitable to one of the spouses. This is why the sanctity of marriage has declined so such in this country and the divorce rate is more than 50% compared to 60 years ago. What the private marriage contract does is forces the betrothed to plan ahead, delegating responsibilities in the marriage and post-marriage, and it also strips divorce
of its profit potential, which is nothing more than using another person to an ends. Where real love and devotion aren't part of the relationship, and has been replaced by selfishness and an attitude of entitlement.
liamg

Con

liamg forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Sckooma

Pro

Sckooma forfeited this round.
liamg

Con

liamg forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
How about legislation to stop peoples' individual rights being infringed upon by private entities?
No votes have been placed for this debate.