Marriage should not be a legal concept

It would appear that Con has misunderstood my resolution; if this is because I was unclear in my description, I must apologize. My resolution is not that there should be no legal equivalent to what marriage does now, only that the relationship component of what exists should be separated and removed. As such, this is not in contradiction to my supporting points. While Con appears to consider this difference a minor one if not even an academic one, this is far from true. The fact that the legal concept of "marriage" is intended to represent a certain designation of personal relationships mirroring what has been called "marriage" by prior institutions (the church, other governments, etc. ) has many real impacts on how it is implemented. First, the fact that there are restrictions at all on who can get these types of unions is because of that terminology and intent. People have ideas about what genders, what quantities of people, and what ages of people can get "married". This interferes with who is allowed to get a simple legal union. What I am proposing is that the ability to unify assets, rights, and legal status in the way that marriage does (and thus gain all the conveniences and benefits that come with it) should be possible regardless of what your relationship is to your other(s). And thus the fact that some group is uncomfortable with the idea of two men having a relationship with each other should be entirely irrelevant as a point of discussion in regards to legal unions. Second, the fact that government considers these unions to be a matter of personal relationship often becomes an issue when initiating or dissolving them (as Con pointed out). For example, courts may seek to block or allow a divorce depending on the relationship issues that instigate it, i. e. whether or not there was an adultery, whether the partners are still living together, etc. [1] It is my contention that this should not be the business of the government or the courts, and if two people choose to enter or leave a legal union that should be entirely up to them. Or for example, when a foreigner wishes to marry a national, the UCSIS is then in their rights to question them as to their personal interactions [2], another practice which is highly invasive and violates individual's right to privacy. These issues all arise because we associate government-defined marriage with personal relationships. Now on with the points of debate:1. Unfair advantages of marriageSaying the cost comes from other government programs does not disprove that it comes at the cost of other Americans. As Con himself states, "taxes are payments by Americans to support programs" (the implication being because they want the benefit of those programs). Thus if a program supports only one subset, does nothing to help those outside of that subset, and comes at the cost of other programs that might benefit everyone, then that benefit comes at the cost of those outside that subset of citizens.2. Government's infringement on invidividual rightsCon has misunderstood my argument; I was not claiming that rights are infringed because of the societal advantages of marriage. My point was that by being involved in this decision, Government cannot help but trample on someone's rights. Government has claimed the responsibility of deciding who can be "married", which carries with it a social recognition. Thus if they decide gay marriage should be banned, they are speaking as a representative of all of the citizenry and saying that the relationship between a gay couple does not have the same recognition as one between a straight couple. This violates that couple and their peers' right to recognize what they wish to recognize as marriage. On the other hand, if they decide it should be allowed, they again are saying that as a representative of the citizenry, this marriage must be recognized by all, violating the anti-gay-marriage groups' right not to recognize a marriage they deem to be invalid. My statement that "none of this need government" was in reference to people deciding what they recognize as marriage, not in reference to the legal certification of a union which I advocate have nothing to do with marriage. In conclusion, I have presented numerous downsides to government involvement in personal relationships through the institution of marriage, and challenge Con to show what benefits there are to balance them. [1]. http://www.divorceroom.com...;[2]http://immigration.findlaw.com...;