Marriage should be legal in the United States.

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve some of the main issues that got somewhat obscured in the previous debate we did on gay marriage. Our goal in this debate is to decide whether marriage should exist as a legal institution, not to argue over the legal merits of specific types of marriages. ::Case Pro- Rebuttals:: Contention 1: The legalization of marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mongeese rightfully observes that our legal system is set up in such a way so that single people are treated differently than married people. However, the conclusions he draws from this fact seem wholly unsubstantiated. Married people have reached a status in society that justifies their special treatment. They simply have many more responsibilities than most single people. Given this fact, it is unreasonable and legally preposterous to argue that treating married and non-married people differently violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. One of my main purposes in this debate will be to show that a legal distinction between married and non-married people is justifiable. ::Case Pro:: Contention 1: Discrimination between married and single people is justified. The dichotomy of legal treatment between those who are married and those who aren't is warranted. Married people take on extra responsibilities that are not undertaken by single people. For instance, they often raise families, which requires quite a bit of time, effort, and money. People that get married have lots of responsibilities, and thus, it is not unreasonable that they should be rewarded for this in a way that single people aren't. Furthermore, if single people want to receive the benefits that married people receive all they have to do is get married. Marriage itself is not an inherently segregated or discriminatory institution. Anyone can get married whether they are rich or poor; educated or uneducated; white or black; or completely incompetent. There is nothing stopping people from getting married. Every legal resident of the United States, except gays, is on a level playing field in terms of their ability to be married. Therefore, single people do little more than gripe when they argue that married people receive legal benefits that they don't. Contention 2: Legally sanctioned marriages are good for couples. As the DDO member andre points out in one of his debates, marriage has many useful functions that are intrinsically valuable to a couple. [1] Among other things these benefits include: - Inheritance of property - Rights to make a medical decision for a spouse, or making other decision such as funeral arrangements - Joint tax filing and joint adoption - Rights to non-resident or alien partners - Marital confidence privilege and spousal testimonial privilege - Parenting rights (access or rights of both partners to make decisions for their child) - Custody of children - Shared property and shared bank accounts It is, of course, true that these benefits could be achieved through various other methods without the legal sanctioning of marriage. However, what would be the point of reworking a system that doesn't appear to be broken? Legally sanctioned marriages provide all these benefits in one easy step. [2] If each of these rights had to be acquired individually or in groups the entire process of "marriage" would become needlessly convoluted. Contention 3: Marriage is good for society and should be promoted by the government. Marriage helps provide a safe place to have children and raise a family. And the importance of this institution really cannot be overrated. In fact, many aspects of societal dysfunction can be positively correlated with broken homes or otherwise dysfunctional families. [3] [4] Indeed, there is hardly another factor more foretelling of a persons status latter in life than the condition of the family they were raised in. Therefore, if a government wants to increase the well being of the nation that it's ruling it would be a good idea to promote marriage by subsidizing it with financial incentives and other benefits. This helps encourage couples to get married and in a small way helps improve marriages by making them financially less strenuous for people. Contention 4: Laws or legal arrangements that produce maximal utility should be preferred in a society. According to the philosopher Jeremy Bentham actions can be said to be good or bad depending on the consequences they produce. And among his many contributions to philosophy was his development of the hedonic calculus. [5] [6] To put this principle in simplistic terms it basically states that any action can be considered good depending on how much pleasure it produces when the well being of all of those affected is taken into consideration. Given this understanding of ethics, it is then easy to realize that legally sanctioned marriages are valuable because they produce many positive benefits in society for lots of people. Legally sanctioned marriages are key aspects of a healthy and functional society. Conversely, there is no reason to think that society would be any better off if my opponent's views were taken to their logical conclusion and we abolished marriage. Eradicating marriage as a legal institution would simply be a risky venture with no discernable benefits. And unless my opponent can demonstrate that abolishing marriage is good for society then he doesn't really have a very strong case. Hopefully, that should be enough for now. I look forward to your response. ---References--- 1. http://www.debate.org... See Con: Round 1 2. http://www.nolo.com... 3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://plato.stanford.edu... 6. http://www.bartleby.com...