Government involvement is unnecessary
Marriage involves the government more than it signifies union.
(1 of 2) Next argument >
The state in which the couple lives in more than likely only recognizes a relationship through marriage. There is no particular reason the government should be involved in a relationship to begin with. This piece of paper saddles the individuals with each other's financial burdens. Further, if a couple decides that they want a divorce, there is financial aspects to disassemble the marriage. Along with this, by law there has to be a division in assets. If a couple does not get married, there is no financial obligation.
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.
[P1] The government only becomes involved in a relationship once a marriage occurs. [P2] Marriage can cause financial burdens for the partners.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P2] A non-married couple can experience financial burden as well, such as struggling to pay for their living situation.
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 This may be because of the outdated expectation of getting married and the change in social attitude toward monogamy.