Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 04 Aug '12 15:47
    What business is it to the government if a couple wants to get married? What is marriage?

    If there are to be legal commitments and such, then why not do it through the courts and lawyers? Why is it that it doesn't take a lawyer to get married, but it does take one to get divorced?

    It seems to me that anyone should be able to get 'marriage benefits' through contractual agreements, but that should be a legal matter, not a religious matter. Separation of church and state, isn't that what we are supposed to have? Why is it that a religious leader gets to declare a couple legal wed in the eyes of the government? A religious event is a religious event and should not be sanctioned by the government.
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Aug '12 15:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Why is it that a religious leader gets to declare a couple legal wed in the eyes of the government? A religious event is a religious event and should not be sanctioned by the government.
    In Britain you can get married in a registry office without any "religious event" whatsoever and without the participation of "a religious leader".

    It seems to me that anyone should be able to get 'marriage benefits' through contractual agreements, but that should be a legal matter, not a religious matter.

    This is the case in Britain. Is it not possible in the U.S.?
  3. 04 Aug '12 15:57
    Originally posted by FMF
    In Britain you can get married in a registry office without any "religious event" whatsoever and without the participation of "a religious leader".
    Yes you can. The question is why can a religious leader do it?
  4. 04 Aug '12 16:01
    Originally posted by FMF
    It seems to me that anyone should be able to get 'marriage benefits' through contractual agreements, but that should be a legal matter, not a religious matter.

    This is the case in Britain. Is it not possible in the U.S.?[/b]
    My question is why do you have to get married to get such benefits? Why not just enter into a contractual agreement for the benefits. Just has a lawyer write up the papers and get the courts to approve!

    I think these agreements should be taken point by point. It should not be a lump sum thing. You shouldn't have to opt out with such things as a pre-nump, you should have to add it to the agreement, each and every aspect.
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Aug '12 16:05
    Originally posted by Eladar
    My question is why do you have to get married to get such benefits? Why not just enter into a contractual agreement for the benefits. Just has a lawyer write up the papers and get the courts to approve!
    This is what marriage is for all intents and purposes in Britain. The religious aspect is optional.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Aug '12 16:06
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I think these agreements should be taken point by point. It should not be a lump sum thing. You shouldn't have to opt out with such things as a pre-nump, you should have to add it to the agreement, each and every aspect.
    I think you should use a pre-nuptial agreement if you want to. Can't you in the U.S.? People in Britain can.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Aug '12 16:08
    Originally posted by Eladar
    The question is why can a religious leader do it?
    People in Britain can choose to have a religious leader conduct a marriage ceremony if they want to. But they don't have to. Is it different in the U.S.?
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Aug '12 16:12 / 1 edit
  9. 04 Aug '12 17:40
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Why is it that it doesn't take a lawyer to get married, but it does take one to get divorced?
    Why should we force lawyers into the equation in either instance unless there is a dispute?
    The current system for marriage in most countries is a certified marriage officer dishes out a marriage certificate (legal agreement). Why should marriage officers be lawyers? Why cant religious people also register as marriage officers, and why cant they do their duty during a religious ceremony? It seems to me that government should only restrict when there is reason to do so. Of course the option to leave out the religious ceremony should always be there.
  10. 04 Aug '12 18:27
    These questions are smokescreens for the religious right wing in America, rather than gay people getting the same rights as them in terms of marital rights, they would rather ban marriage.

    In the UK we call it 'cutting your nose of to spite your face'.
  11. 04 Aug '12 19:04
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why should we force lawyers into the equation in either instance unless there is a dispute?
    The current system for marriage in most countries is a certified marriage officer dishes out a marriage certificate (legal agreement). Why should marriage officers be lawyers? Why cant religious people also register as marriage officers, and why cant they do their ...[text shortened]... eason to do so. Of course the option to leave out the religious ceremony should always be there.
    Because it is a legal relationship. Contract relationships require lawyers, not preachers.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Aug '12 19:10
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Because it is a legal relationship. Contract relationships require lawyers, not preachers.
    "Contract relationships" certainly don't require lawyers or you'd need to have your attorney show up every time you went to Dunkin Donuts.
  13. 04 Aug '12 19:47
    Originally posted by Eladar
    My question is why do you have to get married to get such benefits? Why not just enter into a contractual agreement for the benefits. Just has a lawyer write up the papers and get the courts to approve!

    I think these agreements should be taken point by point. It should not be a lump sum thing. You shouldn't have to opt out with such things as a pre-nump, you should have to add it to the agreement, each and every aspect.
    There is a valid point in here. It is indeed a good question why we have a standard contract (which is called marriage), that includes a whole host of legal provisions regarding children, taxes, provisions for breaking the contract, ...

    To me, the answer isn't too difficult though, it is just the easiest way to do it like this. The vast majority of people who wish to spend their lives together think this contract is a good way to do so. Why should we burden them with the need to pay lawyers to draw up a complicated contract when they can just be offered a standard form that works for most people ?

    There are other problems with an "opt-in" system as well. The government gives benefits to people who have such a contract in many different ways for many different reasons. If you let people pick and choose, there will be a lot of work to decide which contracts are awarded benefits, and which aren't.
  14. 04 Aug '12 19:51 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    My question is why do you have to get married to get such benefits? Why not just enter into a contractual agreement for the benefits. Just has a lawyer write up the papers and get the courts to approve!

    I think these agreements should be taken point by point. It should not be a lump sum thing. You shouldn't have to opt out with such things as a pre-nump, you should have to add it to the agreement, each and every aspect.
    For the modern day liberal, everything is one lump sum thing. It's one size fits ALL.

    A buddy of mine is in the midst of a divorce. He has been the household provider since day one, but after 10 years she decided to have an affair and wants to split. According to the law divorce is a "no fault" proposition no matter the cause, so now he has been forced to move out of the home and will at some point be forced to pay alimony to her for the rest of her life.

    Of course, this is the liberal dream. Free sex and never have to work a day in your life, all because the state determines the regulations and laws for marriage.
  15. 04 Aug '12 19:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    These questions are smokescreens for the religious right wing in America, rather than gay people getting the same rights as them in terms of marital rights, they would rather ban marriage.

    In the UK we call it 'cutting your nose of to spite your face'.
    No one is saying marriage should be banned. All that is being stated is that the state should not sanction certain sexual unions. It makes no sense. Why is the state involved?