@joshuatreeretreat @sigfriedPlease note that the winner for this round will be determined based on the best out of 3 votes i.e. community + 2 judges. Your confirmed judges so far: @vkate
@vkate Thank you VKate. As the debate went on, it occurred to me that marriage tends to reflect our social understanding of family. As family changes, so goes marriage. I didn't dive into that in the debate though. I'm trying to keep my arguments fairly simple and direct for the championship event.Thanks for the advice. I agree my definition needed to be more concise. I went off my script a bit there and it muddled me and ate up some time.
@sigfried Congrats for advancing to the next round!@joshuatreeretreat Great job as always, thank you for participating!
Thanks for the great debate @joshuatreeretreat I'm definitely feeling the pressure ramp up for the championship.
Cohabitating offers the same emotional benefits as marriage (but marriage offers more emotional benefits for men): http://www.vocativ.com/258606/live-together-or-married/index.htmlPolygamy, monogamy, the church, the state: (the Stephanie Coontz book is excellent) https://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.htmlWhere I was going with the child marriage/interracial marriage bans, etc. is that the institution of marriage IS the laws about marriage. Like, marriage isn't my or your personal view of what it should be (a loving, wanted relationship between two people).On gay marriage, THIS: https://harpers.org/archive/2018/01/the-future-of-queer/
@joshuatreeretreat I wasn't sufficiently prepared for the child marriage argument. I should have been. It is a good line of argument. It actually took me a couple takes to realize that was specifically what you were talking about. In note-taking, I didn't quite catch the lead in. Thus it also took me a bit to formulate a formal response for it. Marriage is not just a set of state laws. Those are important for many people, but they are not the beginning or end of Marriage in my view. Marriage is the personal and family relationship that is formed. That is why we have words like "legal marriage" and "common law marriage"For me, what separates Cohabitation from Marriage is that Marriage involves an affirmed commitment. It is a promise and an obligation. Cohabitation is a convenience. If you are committed and cohabitating, you are, in my view, married. If you understand the other person can walk away at any time, without cause, and with no shame or hard feelings, then you are just cohabitating.And I think it is that difference in understanding that makes cohabitation have such a poor comparative track record. The element of trust and teamwork and commitment is what sets marriages apart. Even in the time and place when they were arranged, it's what made successful marriages work while others were a sham.I think even for those who aren't oificially marrried but have a commitement and trust of mutual aid, that is what seperates the good relationships from the bad.
To be clear, I'm not anti-marriage, nor am I saying that no one should get married. I'm saying that marriage has a lot of historical baggage that still exists in the form of outdated laws around it (like those I mentioned) and that given a reasonable alternative, the trend is toward that alternative and away from marriage.
"round 1"PRO - definition of marriage seemed to ignore one very important thing....children.PRO talks about falling marriage rate - will she discuss if that is a GOOD thing or a BAD thing?PRO suggested that 're-defining or 'updating' marriage' is why it is outdated....so if we say cars are outdated because the auto industry puts out new cars - that would hardly make cars outdated. CON - overall - general better definition of the terms of the debate, IMHO. 'round 2'PRO - increasing divorce rates. (BUT - we need to consider that plenty of divorced people re-marry, suggesting that they were unhappy with THEIR marriage, but were seeking the right partner and valued marriage.)CON makes the point that divorce doesn't negate the institution. Makes good points about problems with people trying the 'marriage alternate' - i.e. - cohabiting.At around 11 minutes - finally a mention of children!'round 3'PRO - what is an institution that is outdated?She mentions Monarchy - (I disagree) - and Electoral College (and CON nods assent) - (again - I disagree...)How about the 'Selective Service' and the registration of men who reach 18?CON mentions KKK as outdated. (This begs the question - does CON think this reprehensible organization was ever 'ok' and not outdated at some earlier time....I hope not! Mark this as a faux pas.)CON makes some good basic points...then around 18:00 makes some strong points for legal reasons!'round 4'PRO - marriage has changed significantly. (Really - I would guess that many of the marriages are not much different than 100 or 200 years ago.)The changing 'mores' of society don't negate the benefits of keeping marriage - and that should be a part of the discussion.CON - some basic points to support the institution and how it does change. [Makes the same point I made to PRO - round 2]Continues strong points on benefits! (and PRO has failed to actually respond to any of these points...'round 5'Pro discusses the possibility that maybe we might find cohabitation has the SAME? benefits for children as marriage? Restates her 2 main points ....but those points are weak to suggest that agreement with the points makes marriage outdated.She then claims that partnership has SAME benefits as marriage - which is unproven (and probably not true!)CON - challenges the claims/benefits mentioned by PRO. Some wrap up points on where some bad exists, doesn't negate the institution and its benefits!OVERALL - good effort by both, but I think CON wins the arguments handily....(with a minor knuckle rap for the 1 faux pas.)
@mvineyard Thanks, Michael. I felt like I had to name something outdated :P I was nodding at the monarchy but missed the cue and nodded for the electoral college. Though I would say it is outdated for various reasons. Monarchy mostly is IMO. But I wanted something I could disclaim, and then move on from KKK came to mind. It had many supporters at one time and was relevant to events of its time (though I'd still oppose it). But now, it's very much just a fringe of a fringe, an anachronism at best.The question she posed kind of threw me off. I was a little off my game for parts of this debate, feeling a little disorganized and searching for what I wanted to say.Thanks for giving your take on the action, much appreciated!
@sigfried It would be a good debate on 'monarchy' as outdated - as in the UK (God save the Queen)...having tradition, etc. and plenty of benefits. Could be interesting to see some who would support the tradition - especially since the Queen in the UK is a 'figure head' and is not political, with roles that are not political but are designed to bring opposing groups to a common thing. Any monarchy where they have real power - sure - absolutely outdated and not good. Now - I am glad that the US never had a monarchy (with Alexander Hamilton actually proposed...) - but I bet that plenty of countries where there are 'figure head' monarchs would support them and want them to continue....and they could give reasons why it is not 'outdated' but the role has evolved and modernized.I would support retaining the Electoral College. Hardly outdated. You want tyranny of the majority (i.e. - mob rule) - sure, get rid of it, along with the Constitution that many the opponents of the EC consider IT outdated also. BUT - the KKK was never ....(what is the opposite antonym of 'out dated'....because outdated suggests that it was once good, in vogue, and appropriate.....which the KKK never was! NEVER. Evil from DAY 1. Not an 'anachronism' ...just evil. )
I think if something is outdated, it can still be used and is often still used by the population. For example I consider Dabbing to be outdated, regardless of how many people still do it and their hasn't been a meme to replace it with. So I went with pro, marriage as any contract depends on the individuals making it. Unions are as diverse as the people making them. Why hold onto this one ritual?