The Instigator
darceem
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
soapbox_hero
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Institution of Marriage Should Be Abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
darceem
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,191 times Debate No: 14182
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)

 

darceem

Pro

Resolution
====
Legal marriage is an institution that promotes discrimination on the basis of relationship status and creates an unreasonable expectation for people to marry whether they are fit and ready for it or not, and creates many opportunities for religion and opinion to dominate and discriminate against relationships for inadequate reasons.

History
====
Currently there is a battle over legal gay marriage in the United States. Homosexual couples are fighting for the right to be legally married. Many say it is for the legal benefits and safety, many just want to be seen as equals in the eyes of the government. Historically many types of couples have fought for this legal marriage, including interracial couples and couples where one may be a foreigner. Aspects of marriage such as tax benefits and divorce have been argued for over the course of centuries. Marriage as it stands now is an expected part of society.

Claims to be made by Pro
====
Legal Marriage is Harmful : Legal marriage creates restrictions that, if a relationship should find high water, can put even more stress on a marriage. Children who are involved may be afflicted as well.
Legal Marriage is Easily Abused : Any couple can be married technically, whether they are romantically involved or simply want tax benefits. The only protection from this is the theory of the "sanctity of marriage".
Legal Marriage is Discriminatory : Legal marriage has commonly been used to discriminate against unsavory couples, however legal marriage will always discriminate against a growing group of people - those who choose not to marry in their lifetime. Those people are deprived of many benefits associated with marriage simply because they do not want tie themselves into such a situation.
Legal Marriage Skews Societal Expectations : The introduction of legal marriages increases the value of marriage and therefore increases expectations for people to get married, which can lead to people rushing into uninformed marriages.
Legal Marriage is Pointless : If it were not for the manufactured benefits of marriage, there would be no point to having legal marriages. Most of what people regard marriage as is ceremonial, which does not require legal binding.
Ceremonial Marriage is All We Need : Ceremonial marriage eliminates discrimination aspects (any couple can find a church or organization that will give them a ceremonial wedding), decrease expectations and no longer discriminate against single people, and treats marriage as it should be - as a symbol of unity.

Solution
====
Either abolish any legal institution for joined couples, or create a new system which A) is not based on romantic interest, but rather as a business or family oriented joining to ensure safety in a relationship B) offers far fewer benefits C) neither party receives the right to sue if the union is annulled and C) is created primarily to protect minors (a ceremonially married couple, or a guardian and parent, or godparent and parent, could receive such a union for the safety of the minor), financial security, or as a reference for immigration reasons, etc.

Definitions
====
Legal marriage - A union recognized by state and/or federal government which receives tax and other benefits
Ceremonial marriage - A union recognized by a church or other organization symbolically without any tangible benefits
Divorce - The annulment of a legal marriage

The CON in this argument will argue the benefits and positive aspects of legal marriage.
soapbox_hero

Con

Clash
=======
Forgive me if I didn't get that quite clearly but on the contrary, the resolution seems to be very delimiting. It doesn't consider the fact that marrying (or rather the process of) culturally or legally speaking is very relative. Point is, you immediately went straight to the argument that it enforces an unreasonable expectation. Is this regardless of ethnicity? Some marriages may be forced and most are entirely consensual. It's subject to different societal norms which is status quo regardless of how the union was done. They have, as in most liberal societies every right to decide on who to marry and how it should be done. I find the context, yet again very limited.
So you are arguing against legal marriage? Yet your entire contention rests on the idea that marriages, although relative in different societies are discriminatory. However, the only kind of marriage that imposes certain dogmas and rules are those of ceremonial are religious in kind. Talk about the catholic churches sacraments and Islam's sharia. So do you go against the one that is lawful? Or are you confused with the definitions?
To make things short, by abolishing legal marriage you remove the only check and balance (security) the couples have provided by the state from certain kinds of abuses such as your battle cry: discrimination.
By abolishing the legal aspect of marriage, you obviously derive the couple from state protection, as well as their children. You see, marriage done in court is the only proof you have to the state that you deserve to be treated with rights applicable to families if not (gay couples) then the right to be recognized as partners.
And this is where it gets confusing, ceremonial only? You mean having the marriage done and supervised only by certain religious orders? Well, then I can start of by making my own religious group and wed couples on a regular basis. All their documents approved by me, don't mind that these may or may not be under state supervision as it is tagged: purely ceremonial. With regards to other legal aspects such as finance and property you have yet to prove how a ceremonial marriage can concretize those. Oh and yes, the children. The responsibilities of the couple to their children are only applicable in legal marriages. Yes, the state provides other forms of security such as health and education but when it comes to the question of who cares for the child only courts can nail that down.

Rebuttals
Claims to be made by Pro
====
Legal Marriage is Harmful : Legal marriage creates restrictions that, if a relationship should find high water, can put even more stress on a marriage. Children who are involved may be afflicted as well.

- Those very restrictions (read: laws) protect the couple as well as their children. It prevents the couple from (if that's where you're pointing to) skipping their social responsibilities, now as representatives of a family. It's very vague that you used the word "harmful". It makes too much out of a barely substantiated opinion. Could've used "inconvenient" but hey..

Legal Marriage is Easily Abused : Any couple can be married technically, whether they are romantically involved or simply want tax benefits. The only protection from this is the theory of the "sanctity of marriage".

- So what? That is entirely up to the couple. Marrying is a right, it's benefits or privileges are another issue. Regardless of the purpose, it's draconian to prevent couples from having well laid legal marriages based on ISOLATED CASES of pseudo couples who are only in it for benefits.

Legal Marriage is Discriminatory : Legal marriage has commonly been used to discriminate against unsavory couples, however legal marriage will always discriminate against a growing group of people - those who choose not to marry in their lifetime. Those people are deprived of many benefits associated with marriage simply because they do not want tie themselves into such a situation.
====
-So where's the problem here? Laws concerning marriage have always been amendable. Abolishing legal marriage based on such premise is a solution mismatch.
"Those people are deprived of many benefits associated with marriage simply because they do not want tie themselves into such a situation."
a. Choice, my friend. You chose not to avail of those rights, you don't get them. They are very much aware of that.
b. Your idea of abolishing the institution of marriage only worsens this problem by blurring the line between a concrete union and some wedding ceremony presided by a no less than capable person.
c. What difference does your ceremonially wed couples has then with those who are just live-in partners? Who would want to wed regardless if it is in court or in church if the idea of marriage isn't really a big deal anymore?

Legal Marriage Skews Societal Expectations : The introduction of legal marriages increases the value of marriage and therefore increases expectations for people to get married, which can lead to people rushing into uninformed marriages.

- Certain tax exemptions can be a good incentive for couples to get married however it doesn't necessarily mean it puts pressure on the couple. Again, it's a choice, merely a privilege. Informed marriages? You mean awareness of certain harms and benefits? Informed choice? All present in legal marriage. That's why they're done in courts and with papers to make sure that you know.

Legal Marriage is Pointless : If it were not for the manufactured benefits of marriage, there would be no point to having legal marriages. Most of what people regard marriage as is ceremonial, which does not require legal binding.

- Exactly. That is why you have to option of availing one or not. On the second sentence, you are completely unaware of what kind of society we live in now. Say, what does your ceremonial marriage offer as protection against scamming insurance companies, banks? Can it ensure benefits that modern society offers such as access to parenting and spouse healthcare, education? As previously stated, legal marriage is not granted by the state just to have you within its clutches but rather to protect you and your partner. A lot of our problems today are modern and are very much complicated, which leaves you most likely to be unprotected under a ceremonial marriage. There's real estate what have you. And it won't really care if you have 10 children or so. Under your paradigm, couples are more prone to exploitation.

Ceremonial Marriage is All We Need : Ceremonial marriage eliminates discrimination aspects (any couple can find a church or organization that will give them a ceremonial wedding), decrease expectations and no longer discriminate against single people, and treats marriage as it should be - as a symbol of unity.

- So this is all about saying that legal marriage is not unity? If it is about homosexual couples then again, they clamor to be given equal marriage rights under legal marriage. Abolishing marriage does not address their plight.
Debate Round No. 1
darceem

Pro

It appears I must define discrimination as well.

Discrimination : Restriction of rights or opportunity on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexuality, etc.

By all intensive purposes, saying ceremonial marriage is discriminatory ignoring the fact that (1) religion is choice, so if you cannot find a church that will marry you then perhaps it is time to find a new religion and (2) mostly likely that isn't even necessary as in every religion there will be a church out there somewhere who will do it. Otherwise, who says you need a church or need it to be religious. Marriage has become a very secular thing as well. If you just want to have the pretty wedding then that doesn't need to be presided over by a church necessarily. Also the subjective argument doesn't fly - there are many places in more cultured areas of the world that only have ceremonial marriage. Legal marriage is a very new development. Ceremonial marriage was all that was recognized for the longest time. Just look at the history of legal marriage - it's a long history of discrimination and it's still going on today. All legal marriage "protects" is the church and majorities ability to discriminate and make sure the people they don't want married aren't married.

Not to mention, marriage is not a right. Legal marriage means you receive a marriage LICENSE, a license being something you earn or prove yourself for (in this case by getting married). In that case it is a privilege.

Rebuttals for Con
====
"Those very restrictions (read: laws) protect the couple as well as their children. It prevents the couple from (if that's where you're pointing to) skipping their social responsibilities, now as representatives of a family. It's very vague that you used the word "harmful". It makes too much out of a barely substantiated opinion. Could've used "inconvenient" but hey.."

Allow me to elaborate. The strict marriage expectations create a bond that isn't simply bound by emotion or ceremony but by law. The minute something is restricted by that, the binding gets too tight. Separating the marriage will always result in divorce which can often become expensive and take a couple with some problems and make them despise each other. With children involved there is often severe custody issues and child care issues which can devastate young children.

"Regardless of the purpose, it's draconian to prevent couples from having well laid legal marriages based on ISOLATED CASES of pseudo couples who are only in it for benefits."

If that were the only reason then possibly but as a reason it stands. If that were the case what's the point of categorizing them as romantic?

"So where's the problem here? Laws concerning marriage have always been amendable. Abolishing legal marriage based on such premise is a solution mismatch."

Yes, after long and difficult battles with state government. I think we've had enough attempting to fight for "rights" that could be awarded to in other ways.

"Choice, my friend..."

As someone who is asexual, you are dead wrong here. I don't "choose" not to be in a relationship. I have no desire to date anyone, man or woman, let alone be married to them for the rest of my life. Certainly I could "choose" to go against that and be unhappy with someone just to fit in and get those benefits that are exclusive to these married people. But your right, I choose to not force myself into that. And that attitude is exactly the problem. "Choice" in a relationship is crucial. Otherwise you have young girls dating the first guy they find because people tell them "It's your choice to get married". Divorce rates soar as people force themselves into incompatible marriages simply because they didn't want to be left out.

"What difference does your ceremonially wed couples has then with those who are just live-in partners? Who would want to wed regardless if it is in court or in church if the idea of marriage isn't really a big deal anymore"

There is no difference, and I don't think there should be. For people who are religious, the ceremonies are important to them and they can have it. For some secular people weddings are important and they can have. But if a couple chooses to live just as partners, that's their choice wouldn't you say? This debunks your idea that you can "choose". If you have one door leading to an empty room and one door leading to many luxuries, and the road to get there has been romanticized all your life, you tend to do without thinking. Marriage seems inconsequential at first because no one reads the fine print.

"Again, it's a choice, merely a privilege. Informed marriages? You mean awareness of certain harms and benefits? Informed choice? All present in legal marriage. That's why they're done in courts and with papers to make sure that you know."

No, I mean the difference between an 18-year-old girl getting married to a guy she's known for a couple month because she feels an undue need to get married because society has been pushing it on her since day one. If marriage were only ceremonial, even if we still had this problem at the very least it would diminish the process of breaking up once the couple figured out they weren't compatible.

"Say, what does your ceremonial marriage offer as protection against scamming insurance companies, banks? Can it ensure benefits that modern society offers such as access to parenting and spouse healthcare, education? As previously stated, legal marriage is not granted by the state just to have you within its clutches but rather to protect you and your partner. A lot of our problems today are modern and are very much complicated, which leaves you most likely to be unprotected under a ceremonial marriage. There's real estate what have you. And it won't really care if you have 10 children or so. Under your paradigm, couples are more prone to exploitation."

Please read my solutions section in the last round. The main point is, we can make these things possible with attaching love, or intimacy, or something as sacred and ancient as "marriage" to it.

"So this is all about saying that legal marriage is not unity? If it is about homosexual couples then again, they clamor to be given equal marriage rights under legal marriage. Abolishing marriage does not address their plight."

I'm been working with the LGBT crowd for a while now. It's not just the legal marriage. That oversimplifies it. They just want to be equal. And I know from speaking to many of them that if you were to abolish legal marriage entirely, they would be satisfied. They simply want to be equal in the eyes of the law.
soapbox_hero

Con

soapbox_hero forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
darceem

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the last round. So I will allow him one more chance to post a new argument.
soapbox_hero

Con

soapbox_hero forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
darceem

Pro

darceem forfeited this round.
soapbox_hero

Con

soapbox_hero forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Forfeits = straight pro vote.
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
Wait a second.. nvm my argument still stands. Contrary of what you say, as I've said before, all you're doing is playing with words.
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
I'm sorry, then. Your title coupled with the lack of understanding your terms had mr confused.
Posted by darceem 6 years ago
darceem
Because that isn't my argument. I don't see what is so hard. READ MY RESOLUTION AND DEFINITIONS AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND MY ARGUMENT. You haven't read anything. You're the one saying you don't want legal acknowledgement of married individuals. You just said, and I quote: "I want to withhold the word marriage, while the government has no say in the matter.". And yet no you're disagreeing with me when I'm saying the exact same thing? At this point you're just picking a fight with no context. We're through here.
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
What is hard about putting "Consenting adults, should be able to marry"? I mean honestly, I came into looking at the debate looking at it as if you want marriage itself to be abolished. Even when I read the debate, over, it sure sounds like you don't want a legal acknowledgement for the individuals to marry to be one enitity. I am confused, by your comments versus the debate on what you actually arguing for.
Posted by darceem 6 years ago
darceem
Obviously I can't fit the entire description in the title which is why I wrote the Resolution. Now stop being such a pompous, ignorant jack and actually read the debate. The title shouldn't be a huge concern if you actually read the debate (like I told you five times but just as I thought, you never did). You can stop trolling now.
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
Oh my bad I must have thought that the person on the pro side wanted to abolish the institution of marriage, like the title says. Silly me to not think this debate was about government involment in marriage.

Next time name the title appropriately.
Posted by soapbox_hero 6 years ago
soapbox_hero
I beg to disagree with tidin. It was quite clear what she wanted to prove right from the very beginning.
Posted by darceem 6 years ago
darceem
No you didn't. If you did you'd notice I completely support ceremonial marriage and think government should have no part of marriage. You're not going to win this argument because the only person you're arguing with is yourself. I made pretty clear the whole point of my argument IS that government should have no part in marriage.
Posted by Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
I did read... you're just bashing legal marriage....while not understanding that the government should have no power in limiting two consenting adults to marry. You want to pervert the word marriage to bend around government. I want to withhold the word marriage, while the government has no say in the matter.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
darceemsoapbox_heroTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70