Total Posts:138|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why (legal) Marriage?

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 8:18:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This thread is specifically about marriage as a legal institution, i.e. marriage sanctioned by a government.

Why does the government involve itself in laws and regulations surrounding marriage?

I will welcome anyone's perspective on this given that they are able to stick within a legal context. Anarchists may balk at the existence of the state, but for the purposes of this thread, the state is assumed to exist, and thus create laws, laws which are enforced by the coercive power of the state. This thread questions the purpose of these laws.

---

I will first give my answer.

Governments are a necessary evil. They deal mainly with the security of the populace, and thus involve themselves in matters that are essential to a state/society's existence. Their legitimacy extends from "right by might". What societies choose to do with this "right by might" leads to things such as justice, and laws, among other things - our Constitution is a prime example of this. Through security, a society is able to develop culture and technology. Without security, a society becomes vulnerable to the ravages of nature as well as other potentially militarized societies.

Given the innate coercion inherent in ANY government action, it follows that the government SHOULD (my opinion) involve itself in as little as possible. In fact, I think it should only involve itself in matters that cannot be handled privately, and only when the matters involve an existential threat.

When it comes to marriage, I don't see the public recognition of a union to be a matter of national security, therefore I don't think the government has any business in this regard. An exception would be given to political unions, assuming that there is some sort of ruling class that would require structured recognition of bloodlines and etc, i.e. a nobility. Issues surrounding heredity may be another exception.

However, when it comes to child-bearing and procreation, such matters indeed are existential in nature - without child-bearing, a state/society would soon die out. Therefore, it behooves a state to involve itself in child-bearing, and I believe that most states utilize marriage as a vehicle through which to manage procreation. (not necessarily encourage population growth, but only to ensure that it is managed and thereby not a threat to a state/society's existence).

In other threads less relevant to the direct question of this OP, many have found objections to various parts of this argument. This thread is meant to keep the discussion specifically on the topic of the purpose of marriage.

So, why (legal) marriage? If not for procreation, then why?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 8:40:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Please name one state which has needed to involve itself in child bearing in anything but the limiting of it for purposes of stunting out of control population growth.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 8:42:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 8:40:41 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Please name one state which has needed to involve itself in child bearing in anything but the limiting of it for purposes of stunting out of control population growth.

The Island of Lesbos.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 8:55:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 8:42:16 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 2/4/2013 8:40:41 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Please name one state which has needed to involve itself in child bearing in anything but the limiting of it for purposes of stunting out of control population growth.

The Island of Lesbos.

I was thinking that someone would bring up the Shakers, but cute.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 10:34:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 9:30:53 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why should it be legal? Because society wants it to be.

Who is this society you speak of? I dont think the question was whether it should be legal, but whether it should be a legal matter.

I can't think of a reason why anyone else on this planet should know, or care, whether I'm married (except family). Yet you seem to claim all of society should. I'd like to hear your justification.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 10:40:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would say that an essential duty of government is the upholding of contractual law. A marriage/civil union contract is simply a contract between two individuals and ought to be enforced by the government on that merit alone. It is more bureaucratically simple to have a cookie-cutter contract and, voila, marriage (or a civil union, or whatever anyone wants to call it). I reject the idea that it is the government's job to somehow subtly manage a family's raising of their children so that it turns out in the best interest of the state.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 11:07:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 10:34:16 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 2/4/2013 9:30:53 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why should it be legal? Because society wants it to be.

Who is this society you speak of? I dont think the question was whether it should be legal, but whether it should be a legal matter.

In this case, the American people. Do you agree that Americans want marriage to be a legal matter, or are you suggesting that any politician who stands up and says "I'm going to get rid of legal marriage" will be touted as a hero?

I can't think of a reason why anyone else on this planet should know, or care, whether I'm married (except family). Yet you seem to claim all of society should. I'd like to hear your justification.

I never claimed that all of society should know or care about anything. Please read carefully. Society is a general term, encompassing of many different people and therefore opinions. I am simply pointing to the majority.

I really don't understand you're point. You say that you don't know why anyone else should know that you are married. Are you arguing against legal marriage, or the disclosure of marriage records? If you don't want anyone else to know your business then don't tell anyone, including the state. Just have a private ceremony between the two of you and exchange vows.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 11:13:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 10:40:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would say that an essential duty of government is the upholding of contractual law. A marriage/civil union contract is simply a contract between two individuals and ought to be enforced by the government on that merit alone. It is more bureaucratically simple to have a cookie-cutter contract and, voila, marriage (or a civil union, or whatever anyone wants to call it). I reject the idea that it is the government's job to somehow subtly manage a family's raising of their children so that it turns out in the best interest of the state.

I think you make a good point, but according to your view that would automatically legitimize all gay marriage, Incestuous marriage, and polygamy.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 11:26:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Marriage equality remains a hot topic. People are entitled to their own opinions. But when the issue has a significant impact on all population, it is better to proceed with extra cautions.

According to many traditional marriage defenders, marriage cannot possibly be considered a fundamental right (marriage equality) open to gays and lesbians because such a right must have a foundation in American history, legal traditions, and practices. Yet, the same-sex marriage possesses none of those characteristics. The time the U.S. was founded, and the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, it was irrevocably understood that marriage was restrict to one man and one woman.

Moreover, the responsible procreation (echoed by wrichcirw"s analysis) is keyed to the undeniable biological reality that opposite-sex unions, and only those, can produce children. It is better that children be born into a stable union that only marriage can create, and it is marriage that is the foundation of America"s enduring family units. Children, in general, prosper better with parents of opposite sexes because they derive unique values from such parents (masculinity from father and/or femininity from mother).

It should be admitted that marriage is NOT ONLY conditioned upon having children, yet government has a legitimate interest in promoting what is the best for the children whenever such environment can be provided for.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 12:08:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 10:40:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would say that an essential duty of government is the upholding of contractual law. A marriage/civil union contract is simply a contract between two individuals and ought to be enforced by the government on that merit alone. It is more bureaucratically simple to have a cookie-cutter contract and, voila, marriage (or a civil union, or whatever anyone wants to call it). I reject the idea that it is the government's job to somehow subtly manage a family's raising of their children so that it turns out in the best interest of the state.

Why must the government get involved in the bolded? Why must the coercive powers of a government be brought upon this contract? Why must this contract receive legal recognition?

For example, two consenting adults can have sex and maintain a budget between the two of them. If one of them screws the other one over, the government doesn't get involved, even though especially in the latter, a shared budget is an implied contract.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 12:09:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 11:26:49 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
It should be admitted that marriage is NOT ONLY conditioned upon having children, yet government has a legitimate interest in promoting what is the best for the children whenever such environment can be provided for.

Marriage is not conditioned upon having children, otherwise we would test for infertility and not allow the elderly to marry. Next I suppose you will tell me that it is acceptable because these are marriages that are procreative in type, not necessarily in effect. If so, that is nothing more then an excuse to hand waive away the fact that your position is completely nonsensical and contradictory. Not to mention the fact that the government has no reason to encourage procreation. People will do that with or without the governments consent or encouragement.

Government does have an interest in what's best for the children. So how exactly does your position help this?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 12:10:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 11:13:29 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/4/2013 10:40:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would say that an essential duty of government is the upholding of contractual law. A marriage/civil union contract is simply a contract between two individuals and ought to be enforced by the government on that merit alone. It is more bureaucratically simple to have a cookie-cutter contract and, voila, marriage (or a civil union, or whatever anyone wants to call it). I reject the idea that it is the government's job to somehow subtly manage a family's raising of their children so that it turns out in the best interest of the state.

I think you make a good point, but according to your view that would automatically legitimize all gay marriage, Incestuous marriage, and polygamy.

By this logic, the government should be involved in ALL civil contracts between two or more individuals, written or unwritten. Clearly this is impractical, so either skep is making a different point, or has not thought his scenario all the way through.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 12:15:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 10:34:16 PM, ax123man wrote:
At 2/4/2013 9:30:53 PM, Double_R wrote:
Why should it be legal? Because society wants it to be.

Who is this society you speak of? I dont think the question was whether it should be legal, but whether it should be a legal matter.

I can't think of a reason why anyone else on this planet should know, or care, whether I'm married (except family). Yet you seem to claim all of society should. I'd like to hear your justification.

^
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 12:19:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 8:40:41 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Please name one state which has needed to involve itself in child bearing in anything but the limiting of it for purposes of stunting out of control population growth.

psst...what about this assertion an my questioning of it?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 12:34:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 12:08:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/4/2013 10:40:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would say that an essential duty of government is the upholding of contractual law. A marriage/civil union contract is simply a contract between two individuals and ought to be enforced by the government on that merit alone. It is more bureaucratically simple to have a cookie-cutter contract and, voila, marriage (or a civil union, or whatever anyone wants to call it). I reject the idea that it is the government's job to somehow subtly manage a family's raising of their children so that it turns out in the best interest of the state.

Why must the government get involved in the bolded? Why must the coercive powers of a government be brought upon this contract? Why must this contract receive legal recognition?

For example, two consenting adults can have sex and maintain a budget between the two of them. If one of them screws the other one over, the government doesn't get involved, even though especially in the latter, a shared budget is an implied contract.

Because contractual law is meaningless if it isn't backed up. For example, if I want to marry someone, then we both draw up a contract and sign on the dotted line that should we separate I get x and they get y, that they have power of attorney should I be incapacitated, that they have visitation rights, so on and so forth. Say someone tries to renege on the contract, who then steps in to resolves things? The court system does. Let's say I go insane and get thrown in the asylum, and my partner needs power of attorney. Our marriage contract gives it to him, but say my crazy Aunt Suzy starts trying to act as if she has said power because she's my next of kin. The courts step in and resolve this. I don't see how contractual law of any kind can stand without a court system to settle disputes.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 12:45:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 12:19:10 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/4/2013 8:40:41 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Please name one state which has needed to involve itself in child bearing in anything but the limiting of it for purposes of stunting out of control population growth.

psst...what about this assertion an my questioning of it?

lol, well, I'd just retort that marriage IS this child-bearing policy of which you speak. :)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 12:49:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/4/2013 11:13:29 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/4/2013 10:40:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would say that an essential duty of government is the upholding of contractual law. A marriage/civil union contract is simply a contract between two individuals and ought to be enforced by the government on that merit alone. It is more bureaucratically simple to have a cookie-cutter contract and, voila, marriage (or a civil union, or whatever anyone wants to call it). I reject the idea that it is the government's job to somehow subtly manage a family's raising of their children so that it turns out in the best interest of the state.

I think you make a good point, but according to your view that would automatically legitimize all gay marriage, Incestuous marriage, and polygamy.

I am referring to a bare-bones civil contract which the government will step in to enforce if it is breached but which otherwise affords the bearer no real special treatment. I don't think that what I'm proposing is in the same vein as the way heterosexual marriage currently works, which basically amounts to a government subsidy. 'Legitimize' is a bit of a fuzzy word in this situation, so I'm not sure how else to reply.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 1:03:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 12:34:11 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/5/2013 12:08:51 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/4/2013 10:40:40 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I would say that an essential duty of government is the upholding of contractual law. A marriage/civil union contract is simply a contract between two individuals and ought to be enforced by the government on that merit alone. It is more bureaucratically simple to have a cookie-cutter contract and, voila, marriage (or a civil union, or whatever anyone wants to call it). I reject the idea that it is the government's job to somehow subtly manage a family's raising of their children so that it turns out in the best interest of the state.

Why must the government get involved in the bolded? Why must the coercive powers of a government be brought upon this contract? Why must this contract receive legal recognition?

For example, two consenting adults can have sex and maintain a budget between the two of them. If one of them screws the other one over, the government doesn't get involved, even though especially in the latter, a shared budget is an implied contract.

Because contractual law is meaningless if it isn't backed up. For example, if I want to marry someone, then we both draw up a contract and sign on the dotted line that should we separate I get x and they get y, that they have power of attorney should I be incapacitated, that they have visitation rights, so on and so forth. Say someone tries to renege on the contract, who then steps in to resolves things? The court system does. Let's say I go insane and get thrown in the asylum, and my partner needs power of attorney. Our marriage contract gives it to him, but say my crazy Aunt Suzy starts trying to act as if she has said power because she's my next of kin. The courts step in and resolve this. I don't see how contractual law of any kind can stand without a court system to settle disputes.

I think we are somewhat talking past each other. I am not questioning whether or not contract law should be enforced, but rather whether or not marriage should be part of contract law in the first place. Why must the government get involved at all? Why must there be legal stipulations for marriage? Why must there be contract law encoded for such an activity?

Regarding your financial arrangements, this could easily be done without a marriage. People can just sign a binding contract of some sort that stipulates asset sharing.

Also, from what I understand marriage does not automatically grant power of attorney, and even if it did, again, someone can just draw up a power of attorney for the purpose, regardless of the status of a marriage.

The only aspect of marriage that seems unique to it vis a vis other contracts is the point you made about kinship. Now, one gigantic part of kinship is lineage, i.e. the whole "next of kin" deal. Usually this is a spouse or a "legitimate" child. Other links such as your Aunt Suzy are typically biological in nature, i.e. there is some sort of child-bearing somewhere that is typically critical in kinship matters. To me, this aspect of marriage is very much relevant to issues revolving around child-bearing, and is how the state manages the activity.

I know for gay rights activists, this kinship matter is huge because of the spousal arrangements they seek so they can actually become kinsmen/women to each other. However, in the case of an LGBT marriage, there's no ostensible child-bearing purpose of the marriage. If all other kinsmen/women of this couple were also LGBT, that would mean that none of them procreated (unless via extra-marital means). This is where my existential argument becomes valid, because if you extend LGBT marriages to the population in a significant enough fashion, you would have a procreation problem, an existential matter the state cannot ignore. Why would the state embrace such a position?

In this sense, I don't mind extending kinship rights to LGBT couples via some sort of civil union. But I simply would not call it marriage - the concepts are materially different and in my mind do not deserve any comparisons of equality.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 1:10:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 12:09:46 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/4/2013 11:26:49 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
It should be admitted that marriage is NOT ONLY conditioned upon having children, yet government has a legitimate interest in promoting what is the best for the children whenever such environment can be provided for.

Marriage is not conditioned upon having children, otherwise we would test for infertility and not allow the elderly to marry. Next I suppose you will tell me that it is acceptable because these are marriages that are procreative in type, not necessarily in effect. If so, that is nothing more then an excuse to hand waive away the fact that your position is completely nonsensical and contradictory. Not to mention the fact that the government has no reason to encourage procreation. People will do that with or without the governments consent or encouragement.

Government does have an interest in what's best for the children. So how exactly does your position help this?

The "procreative in type, not necessarily in effect" charge is indeed powerful, but if only one treats "having children" as the only reason for the government to recognize marriage, a position evidently not advocated by myself. When biological conditions dictate that people are unable to bear child, other social responsibility bears more weight in defining marriage. For example, people should consider becoming role models for the next generation to come. They should also help foster an environment that children can proposer, even if they themselves are unable to conceive. Therefore, even if people (including elders) cannot bear children because of their biological conditions, it does not transfer to argument that "Marriage is not conditioned upon having children." Having children should play a significant role in defining marriage, even if it is not the only reason for people getting married.

Since opposite-sex marriage fosters better a environment for the children to prosper than same-sex marriage does (children derive Unique values from heterosexual parents), and since government does have an interest in what's best for the children, government should restrict marriage to one man and one woman (the best option). Personal liberty should be honored, but not without limitations. In recognizing same-sex marriage, many may have gone too far.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 1:22:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 12:45:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/5/2013 12:19:10 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/4/2013 8:40:41 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Please name one state which has needed to involve itself in child bearing in anything but the limiting of it for purposes of stunting out of control population growth.

psst...what about this assertion an my questioning of it?

lol, well, I'd just retort that marriage IS this child-bearing policy of which you speak. :)

AND YET - the era of human marriage, and more specifically state sanctioned marriage, has been fairly short in the annals of human history, and if one looks to southwest Africa where even informal religious marriage is often times devoid in child bearing couples, one quickly sees that this is a fallacious statement/argument, because at no time has the human race ever needed to have a conjoined effort to procreate lest face extinction, and in no place is there a higher growth of the population than there is in southwest Africa, and one can figure this out intuitively anyway, because any species that would need this kind of concerted effort to procreate would have found itself EXTINCT LONG AGO.

The human race multiplies without concern for ANYTHING else but itself. Humans need encouragement to procreate like bears need encouragement to sh*t in the woods.

So, once more, I pose to you the query:

Please name one state which has needed to involve itself in child bearing in anything but the limiting of it for purposes of stunting out of control population growth.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 1:34:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because The State is not so much a literal tool for regulating society as it is a psychological institutions for defining and redefining our group-mind understanding of values and language.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 1:43:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 1:34:19 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Because The State is not so much a literal tool for regulating society as it is a psychological institutions for defining and redefining our group-mind understanding of values and language.

I would say that the state is none of this.

It is not a "literal tool for regulating society"...it is a tool for security society against existential threats.

It does not contain "psychological institutions for defining and redefining our group-mind understanding of values and language," unless the lack these communal values and languages proves to be an existential threat.

For example, we have public education systems. The ostensible purpose of such systems is to make education widespread, and so that "no child is left behind". Why is this a government matter? Because without government assistance, these children would grow up ignorant and unskilled, disgruntled, and distraught. A large enough populace of such people could become a danger to society as a whole. This is an existential matter that threatens the security of the state, so government involves itself in public education, and taxes its citizenry accordingly by using the coercive powers of the government to force compliance to this tax. It's obviously not very good at administering education, given the amount of inner city gang violence and etc, but the alternative (no public education at all) would probably be even worse.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 1:45:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 1:34:19 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Because The State is not so much a literal tool for regulating society as it is a psychological institutions for defining and redefining our group-mind understanding of values and language.

Well said, especially in how succinctly you said it.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 1:54:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 1:22:24 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/5/2013 12:45:50 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/5/2013 12:19:10 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/4/2013 8:40:41 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Please name one state which has needed to involve itself in child bearing in anything but the limiting of it for purposes of stunting out of control population growth.

psst...what about this assertion an my questioning of it?

lol, well, I'd just retort that marriage IS this child-bearing policy of which you speak. :)

AND YET - the era of human marriage, and more specifically state sanctioned marriage, has been fairly short in the annals of human history, and if one looks to southwest Africa where even informal religious marriage is often times devoid in child bearing couples, one quickly sees that this is a fallacious statement/argument, because at no time has the human race ever needed to have a conjoined effort to procreate lest face extinction, and in no place is there a higher growth of the population than there is in southwest Africa, and one can figure this out intuitively anyway, because any species that would need this kind of concerted effort to procreate would have found itself EXTINCT LONG AGO.

The human race multiplies without concern for ANYTHING else but itself. Humans need encouragement to procreate like bears need encouragement to sh*t in the woods.

So, once more, I pose to you the query:

Please name one state which has needed to involve itself in child bearing in anything but the limiting of it for purposes of stunting out of control population growth.

1) Regarding the underlined, marriage as an institution has about as long a history as written history, if not much longer. I have no idea what is making you think otherwise:

"Although the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage. The way in which a marriage is conducted and its rules and ramifications has changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture or demographic of the time."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

2) It took ostensibly millions of years it took for humans to develop simple things like fire and the wheel. However, we've made immeasurable progress since developing writing, at a scale and scope much greater than things like fire and the wheel. I think marriage as an institution, considering it would take some recognition of a legal structure and thus some sophistication similar to writing to have an institution such as marriage, has facilitated human development, quite possibly by adding some sort of moral element to child-bearing and child-rearing.

3) Regarding species that have gone extinct without the institution of marriage, well, that's easy...there are probably innumerable species that have gone extinct over the course of the life of the Earth. However, mankind has NOT gone extinct, and perhaps marriage is one reason why this is the case.

4) The human race has much more successfully multiplied with institutions like marriage. You seem to be making my point for me.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 2:05:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
^^

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...

...and...*cough* bullsh!t *cough*

Human population growth has always been fine, dandy and fairly steady...until the industrial revolution.

Economic prosperity, not marriage, is what spurns human procreation. This fact is should be obvious to anyone.

Would you like to try again, or will you finally concede this end of your argument is simply designed to obfuscate your homophobia?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 2:09:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, I didn't ask for a species that had gone extinct without marriage. I said that any species that required such a large, concerted effort to procreate, like you state humans need (despite knowing full, well we don't need that), would have gone extinct long ago.

Also, we had writing 500,000 years ago. We just didn't have paper.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Jarhyn
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 2:24:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I see two primary aspects to this discussion which both serve a need for discussion.

First, it's pretty obvious that people regardless of culture wish to secure mates and seek some form of equilibrium in most things, and I see no reason why relationships ought be excluded from that set of things.

Why would a person not seek some state of security regarding physical pleasure and emotional closeness? By adding some form of social or moral responsibility for both parties to that relationship, it seems a foregone conclusion that the equilibrium will be encouraged. Even so, it is difficult to enforce such a responsibility on a person yourself, and it's likely to be counter-productive to do so; if the mate rather than society are the ones who enforce the "stick" and "carrot" upon the equilibrium upon the relationship, animus may very well arise between the participants, who each resent the other for trapping them. But if it is enforced by some outside entity, a third party to the relationship, both participants can feign innocence. Thus by society encouraging officiated relationships, and enforcing upon the participants the terms of those relationships, people have some manner of benefit.

As such, while I can't say it should rightly be what we today call "marriage" there is certainly a reason why a society, using the tool of government, would have a reason to encourage legally sanctioned domestic partnerships which are entirely independent of child rearing: It gives people a way to attain greater equilibrium in their relationships.

As to whether it should be called "marriage", however, has yet to be addressed. In modern usage "marriage" tends to refer to what is commonly claimed as a religious rite, and making that domestic partnership form to be a legally recognized one simultaneously legitimizes religions which use the word "marriage" and disenfranchises theologies or secular world views which do not recognize the specific rite of "marriage". Further, it brings a conflict between people as to whose rite is to be considered "marriage" and which ones are not to be considered as such; Christians often do not wish to be forced by law to consider a certain rite a "marriage" when their sect rejects the rite performed between the participants and other religions or sects often DO wish their rites as performed to be considered valid.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 2:53:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 1:10:49 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
The "procreative in type, not necessarily in effect" charge is indeed powerful, but...

No, it's not. The word "type" is simply an acknowledgement that the act is not necessarily intended to create a child, making the proceeding case incoherent.

More importantly, "procreative in type" simply means "between a man and a woman". Using your position as an argument is not very powerful.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 2:54:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 1:10:49 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
Since opposite-sex marriage fosters better a environment for the children to prosper...

...