NationStates Jolt Archive

In the time since @@NAME@@ outlawed divorce, countless youth scared of commitment are putting off marriage, living together without ever marrying, and just swearing off the whole idea altogether.

The Debate

1. "This is an outrage!" cries conservative preacher @@RANDOMANE@@, who is married to a wedding planner. "The reason young people don't get married is because we don't make them! Make everyone get married! Give them two years after being out of school and that's it, and if you don't comply you answer to the courts!"
[effect]young people often marry total strangers just to avoid going to jail for being single
[stats]civil rights decrease, economy increases, happiness decreases

2. "Aye, the preacher's right, except for one thing," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, president of the @@NAME@@ Council for Traditional Values. "Parents know what's best for their children. People got divorced in the past because they had poor choices in spouses, and why would it be any different under the preacher's idea? Have parents pick spouses for their kids and all those problems will disappear. And make the kids honor their parents' choices. It's the way the Good Lord intended it."
[effect]young adults are funneling out of the country to avoid marrying people their parents pick for them
[stats]devoutness increases, civil rights decrease, happiness decreases greatly, crime decreases

3. "Forced marriages? Never on your lives," shout angry young adults outside the capital building. "We won't marry because that's the end of our lives. Let young people be young and single, and if we make mistakes, let us correct them as we find them out. Life was better for all of us when divorce was legal. Let people out of bad marriages."
[effect]a mass of frustrated married couples are splitting up in response to the recent legalization of divorce
[stats]civil rights increase, devoutness decreases, happiness increases
designed to reverse the effects of banning divorce

4. "Legalizing divorce isn't the last step," cries gay rights activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, surrounded by polyamorists and banner-waving bisexuals. "We need to re-define the idea of marriage. If four men want to marry two women, who are they hurting? Or eight women marrying each other, or whatever they want. If consenting adults are OK with their decisions, then that's all that matters."
[effect]entire city blocks are frequently married to one another just for the tax breaks
[stats]civil rights increase, taxes decrease, devoutness decreases

5. "Marriage? That's for losers," chimes confirmed bachelor @@RANDOMNAME@@ from a dirty apartment on an old, messy couch. "What's so great about companionship anyway? I say we stop rewarding people for finding this bogus 'true love' and just dissolve the entire institution of marriage. If people want to live together, fine by me, but the government doesn't need to sanction it at the expense of the single."
[effect]the legal institution of marriage no longer exists
[stats]happiness decreases, economy increases, taxes increase

Valid only for nations that, when last faced with the "Where's the Love Gone?" issue, chose to outlaw divorce

Nice. I like the humour.

May I suggest you post the stats that you are considering. It might open the debate.

Hey man, make an issue out of it. :lol:

Excellent. Very well written.

Stats are up; debate is encouraged. I used my best judgment when it came to what went up and down; if you're unclear on the reasoning for a rise or fall, just say so.

Arb meanderings from the mind of Rondebosch:

1: Wouldn't the economy decrease - possibly - because a whole bunch of these new husbands may demand that their wives quit their jobs and stay at home?

2: Crime, especially youth-related crime, might decrease slightly, because you have all these young adults forced into adult responsibility. They will be too busy getting, and keeping, jobs to support their family and won't have time to go on the rampage. Come to think of it, that might strengthen the economy too.

I realise that, in some ways, I am contradicting what I said under option one...

5: I would suggest replacing the word "concept" in the effect with something else - union, institution, or custom. Concept is the incorrect word.

Also, why does government spending increase?

For #1, it said nothing about the values of marriages; it just said that marriage was required by law. Both people may work, or one may stay home; the reality is that we don't really know. There may be an influx of childless couples. What I do know is that with more marriages, more money is being spent on them, and the wedding industry blossoms. That's why I made it a point to remind the readers that the person arguing for #1 was married to a wedding planner - guess who benefits?

For #2, youth-related crime may decrease, but the economy would not benefit at all because of the effect - young people would rather emigrate than marry a person of their parents' choosing, atl east according to the outcome. Fewer young people means a smaller workforce and, in fact, a decreased economy, though those who stick around may have lavish weddings planned by their parents at great expense, so the economy's really a crapshoot and I therefore left it alone.

For #5, when I said "concept" I was looking for a good word with limited success. I will probably change it. And I had government spending increase because under #4, I explicitly stated that married people got tax breaks. With no one receiving said tax breaks, the government has more money to spend and therefore spends it...though if taxes decrease under option #4, I probably should just say they increase under #5. After all, what actually increases in the average tax rate. Fewer tax breaks means a higher average tax rate.

It seems to me that there's a "wrong" answer, and hasn't it been officially said that any choice should be a trade-off? I mean, "civil rights decrease, happiness decreases, economy decreases, taxes increase"? How is that a trade-off?

i agree with Evil Dorks. (haha that statement thoroughly entertains me....ahem.)

i would agree with number 3 - divorce should be legal. but that's just the fiefdom of sporktopolis.

otherwise, awesome issue concept. (see? that's how you use the word. to mean "idea", not an enforced regulation.)

:arrow: spork

good i like it your issues they are all good...pity they won't be seen for a l o n g time

good i like it your issues they are all good...pity they won't be seen for a l o n g time

"5. "Marriage? That's for losers," chimes confirmed bachelor @@RANDOMNAME@@ from a dirty apartment on an old, messy couch. "What's so great about companionship anyway? I say we stop rewarding people for finding this bogus 'true love' and just dissolve the entire institution of marriage. If people want to live together, fine by me, but the government doesn't need to sanction it at the expense of the single."
[effect]the legal institution of marriage no longer exists
[stats]civil rights decrease, happiness decreases, economy decreases, taxes increase"

Why would that imply: civil rights decrease, happiness decreases, economy decreases, taxes increase?

"5. "Marriage? That's for losers," chimes confirmed bachelor @@RANDOMNAME@@ from a dirty apartment on an old, messy couch. "What's so great about companionship anyway? I say we stop rewarding people for finding this bogus 'true love' and just dissolve the entire institution of marriage. If people want to live together, fine by me, but the government doesn't need to sanction it at the expense of the single."
[effect]the legal institution of marriage no longer exists
[stats]civil rights decrease, happiness decreases, economy decreases, taxes increase"

Why would that imply: civil rights decrease, happiness decreases, economy decreases, taxes increase?

OK, here's my reasoning:

Civil rights decrease - people no longer have the right to get married, which could easily be seen as the loss of a civil right. I threw it in there because i believed it made sense...it could be omitted.

Happiness decreases - couples who were previously married are now upset at their union being dissolved

Economy decreases - less money spent on weddings

Taxes increase - no tax breaks for married couples, therefore the average tax rate goes up

Any or all of the above would be appropriate for this choice, though the economy decreasing may be the best one to omit. I probably need a positive aspect to replace it, like, say, come to think of it, the economy may actually increase. With no one getting married, there may be less of a reason for people to get into committed relationships, meaning that people work more for themselves and there are more people in the workforce. So I will boost the economy for that option rather than decrease it. Amazing the debates i have with myself.

Civil rights decrease - people no longer have the right to get married, which could easily be seen as the loss of a civil right. I threw it in there because i believed it made sense...it could be omitted.

People have the right to couple up with one or multiple humans or to break up easily, without bureaucracy thus requiring less work for the government (freedom of choice and better for tax spendation). Therefore the government has less power to subsidize those who chose to get married while those who chose not are not putted in discredit.

Happiness decreases - couples who were previously married are now upset at their union being dissolved

I don't undserstand this. Can you work this out more (native language != English).

Economy decreases - less money spent on weddings

Less money spended on bureaycracy. No tax breaks result in the government less powerful since they receive less money. Such money as of weddings would be spend on other things then.

Taxes increase - no tax breaks for married couples, therefore the average tax rate goes up

Ok.

Any or all of the above would be appropriate for this choice, though the economy decreasing may be the best one to omit. I probably need a positive aspect to replace it, like, say, come to think of it, the economy may actually increase. With no one getting married, there may be less of a reason for people to get into committed relationships, meaning that people work more for themselves and there are more people in the workforce. So I will boost the economy for that option rather than decrease it. Amazing the debates i have with myself.

Imo the civil rights definetely increase because people have more choice. More equality between non-married and married. I find it highly unfair to make them decrease because one choses for option 5.

Happiness decreases - couples who were previously married are now upset at their union being dissolved

I don't undserstand this. Can you work this out more (native language != English).

OK. Pretend that you're happily married. No reason in the world to end it. Then the government outlaws marriage and the two of you are, for all legal purposes, divorced. The tax breaks you once had are gone. You no longer have recognition as a married couple, and for that matter, if you travel overseas, they won't recognize you as a couple since you can't get married in your home country (I will assume that you're traveling to a country that allows marriage.) Aside from that, there is no more joint property; you are now glorified roommates instead of married. So if you sell you house, which I will assume you bought jointly, how do you decide who gets the money from it? Either it all goes to one person, if it was in one person's name, or you squabble over it. It creates seemingle unneeded tension.

Also remember that this only affects married couples, and that I am counting happiness as an average figure. I will assume that 50% of the population of any given country is married, so if you outlaw marriage, you cheese off half the country. Stress is added to their lives, so their happiness goes down.

As I mentioned in General, I decided to omit the whole civil rights issue, since that one could go either way.

My own prejudiced opinions.

First, I think you can and ought to make this an issue for any nation, no need to have previously banned divorce. Option 5 doesn't really make much sense if the nation previously banned divorce (you can't divorce, but it doesn't matter, because you can't marry anyway.)

On #2: I don't understand why this increases devoutness, other than being a conservative option. You can have arranged marriages without a religious culture, no?

I think Rondebosch makes a good point about crime decreasing. Even if they don't have kids to support, married husbands tend to commit a fair deal less crime than your average single male.

Also, I wonder if people are really that much less happy with arranged marriages, or if that's just Western bias. I've heard it suggested that arranged marriages are happier in the long run, because they're based more on commitment and less on passion. I'm not going to spend a lot of time defending that idea; just a thought.

On #4: People can already marry each other for tax breaks. Allowing them to marry people of the opposite gender, or multiple people, isn't going to make them more likely to do so. A gay man can find a woman who wants to commit marriage fraud with him as easily as he can find a man willing to do so, and certainly much easier than he can find a whole city block (all of whom, if they wanted tax breaks that badly, could have married each other individually before-hand anyway). Actually that bothers me regarding a currently existing issue too...

Personally, I don't like that there's no medium between #4 and #5. Why can't my government legally recognize a variety of civil unions that just happen to have no tax benefits?

On #5:

I definitely don't think should result in a civil rights decrease.

I don't think this ought to decrease happiness either. If you care that much about confirming your marriage, there are plenty of religious groups that would probably be happy to do so, or even secular groups that happen to have an ideological bent. I doubt travel overseas will be a big issue at all - if anything, you can just get married in some other country. And it seems like you could still have joint property without marriage.

I'm not sure why this increases economy.

OK. Pretend that you're happily married. No reason in the world to end it. Then the government outlaws marriage and the two of you are, for all legal purposes, divorced. The tax breaks you once had are gone.

Only the econimical disadvantage matters. For the rest, it doesn't affect people. See my reaction to your 50% marriage later in my reply.

You no longer have recognition as a married couple, and for that matter, if you travel overseas, they won't recognize you as a couple since you can't get married in your home country (I will assume that you're traveling to a country that allows marriage.)

In the case a country where marriage exists, yes.

However such external policies have influence IRL while external influences like this do not have influence on Nationstate. It doesn't affect me that one is some high-military force while i don't have any military. Therefore, in this game, this is irrelevant.

Aside from that, there is no more joint property; you are now glorified roommates instead of married. So if you sell you house, which I will assume you bought jointly, how do you decide who gets the money from it? Either it all goes to one person, if it was in one person's name, or you squabble over it. It creates seemingle unneeded tension.

Put it on paper, make the paper official. Lawyer, and done. That's it. How do you think people who just live together in non-married state do this? Such is done IRL, too. Or just don't behave so childish/materialistic.

Depends on how the state works IRL, but hard to write out in this game. Ie. in an authorian state such would only count if it were official. In a liberal state the government wouldn't have power to force such, people would have to solve it theirselve based on consensus (that's a bit dogmatic put though)

Also remember that this only affects married couples, and that I am counting happiness as an average figure. I will assume that 50% of the population of any given country is married, so if you outlaw marriage, you cheese off half the country. Stress is added to their lives, so their happiness goes down.

Well the other 50%/half of the country would get economic benefit from it, relatevely (no tax cut). Therefore i think happiness should remain neutral. Lacedaemonians points out that it is still possible to get some non-governmental base of marriage status. Main difference is it's not official anymore to the government.

The only differences because of this in this game would be the economical change which creates equality and non-prejudice choice (since ''chosing to live together'' creates no economical advantage whatsoever) thus leads to freedom of choice - imo (and the tax).

As I mentioned in General, I decided to omit the whole civil rights issue, since that one could go either way.

As i stated earlier i definitely think it increases civil rights.

Propose it. It will have an interesting affect on each individual NS state that gets this as an issue. It certainly is different. I'd like to see how it changes the civil rights and economic status of a country.

Some of it is quite realistic as well and would make for an interesting decision process, especially since everyone here has a different idea of how they would implement this in their nation.

I intend to propose this issue, but not right now; I want to fine-tune it first and make sure i have all the bugs worked out. However, it also looks as though i have a few questions to answer, and I will do just that.

First off, to Lacedaemonians. I made it exclusively for nations that most recently chose the "ban divorce" option for the "Where's the Love Gone?" issue because it wouldn't make as much sense for young people to refuse to get married en masse over much else. Well, it could happen, but that's the obvious thing. I realize that many people refuse to get married in some areas of the world and it has nothing to do with a lack of ability to divorce; however, why would someone want to tie themselves down, literally, for the remainder of their lives at a young age with no escape?

Option 5 was my "out from left field" option. I believe that most good issues should have at least one option that has consequences that don't appear to relate to the issue but might work just as well. After all, you're left with forcing marriage, legalizing divorce, and legalizing all kinds of marriages. Why not throw in the oddball option?

For #2, remember that the angle of the "Where's the Love Gone?" option of banning divorce was religious. Some options come with different angles, some of which people may not agree with. However, the result would be the same, and though arranged marriages are possible in non-religious contexts, most of the ones in the world today and probably over history are within religious contexts. As for it decreasing happiness, well, peoplea re forced into marriages with people they may hate. It's a roll of the dice, really. And maybe I am a bit biased because I am a Westerner (an American specifically) and like many in the West, I find the practice of arranged marriage abhorrent. I certainly wouldn't be happy if forced to marry someone - ANYONE, even if I loved the person. I love my girlfriend dearly, but we have no plans to marry as of yet, and if our parents forced us to get married, it would be...umm, not cool with either of us. If arranged marriages became the law in the U.S., I guaran-damn-tee that happiness would plummet, especially among the youth.

For #4, I am well aware that people can marry for tax breaks. People can marry for whatever reason they please; however, if you can join some union of married people, and they will have you, and there are tax breaks involved, it seems like the logical thing to do so. Aside from that, if you want to divorce your city block and move elsewhere for whatever reason, they might not be as vindictive as an ex-wife. It might also suck in single people who marry into the city block just for the tax breaks.

As for #5, the happiness decrease would be largely for those who were already married. And yes, I am certain that people would squabble like idiots over common property if their union was dissolved. Some people wouldn't do that, but many couples have people who would happily stab the other in the back to get ahead. As a product of a divorce, I assure you that divorce is hell. It can't be much more fun for the couple itself, and if the couple wants to stab each other in the back, then they will be miserable.

However, I decided to omit the civil rights decrease; that one could go either way. I also decided to boost the economy because a culture without marriage would see younger people putting careers first and companionship second, and with more people working more of the time, the economy goes up.

For Green Hippies, many of your questions were answered in the previous paragraphs, and there is still the issue of those who are married versus those who are not, and their happiness. Those who are unmarried really aren't affected, unless they were planning to get married or whatever. They gain relative to the married half, but the only benefit they receive is the avoidance of hassles of having their marriage dissolved. Therefore, I don't see how their happiness increases.