Government involvement is unnecessary

The argument

The argument here targets not the relationship but the state's role in it. Whatever a couple's own understanding of their commitment, the state they live in will more than likely recognise that relationship in only one form, through marriage; other arrangements have no standing. Proponents ask what justifies this and find no particular reason for a government to be involved in a relationship to begin with. Two people's decision to share a life is not, on this view, a matter that requires registration with the state, and the fact that recognition runs through one route only reflects the persistence of a custom rather than any present need. What the custom actually does, the argument continues, is financial. The piece of paper saddles the individuals with each other's financial burdens, so that obligations one partner incurs become obligations the couple holds. The point becomes clearest at the end. A couple who decide that they want a divorce find there are financial aspects to disassembling the marriage, costs attached to undoing what was registered, and by law there has to be a division in assets, determined by rules the couple did not write and may not endorse. A couple who do not get married face none of this: with no legal status to dissolve, there is no financial obligation to divide and no process to buy their way out of. Set side by side, the two states of affairs make the case. Marriage attaches legal and financial consequences that the relationship itself does not need, and it attaches them through an institution whose necessity its defenders are unable to establish. If government involvement in relationships is unnecessary, then the legal institution that exists to deliver it is a survival from another era, which is what it means, on this argument, to call marriage an outdated custom.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Government involvement can benefit the couple. If a wealthy woman were to get divorced, a legal arrangement may prevent the husband or partner from taking everything from her. It also prevents a parent from receiving more or any time with a kid in order to limit the chance of neglecting or unfairness for the child. If the courts were to not become involved, there could be more damage for both people.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] A non-married couple can experience financial burden as well, such as struggling to pay for their living situation.

Further reading

Marriage was first seen in 1250-1300 C.E., according to The Spruce. The idea of marriage use to be for an alliance between families. While today that is not common, there are still arranged marriages. This is the act of a family choosing who their child will marry based on financial benefits or family ties. This calls for the idea that sometimes people get married not out of love, but rather economic association. In the United States, particularly, marriage rates are going down within the millennial and younger ages according to Bentley University. This may be because of the outdated expectation of getting married and the change in social attitude toward monogamy.