Gay Marriage

My opponent has just proved that all "common slogan"s are basically pointless, as they say nothing at all. This includes his empty opening argument that "Love is love". Love is not a sufficient justification for marriage, as I have shown above. So, the "slogan" he used as his opening argument is shown not to be a proper argument.We are not debating the abolition of cars (air pollutants, fuel wasters, cause of many lethal accidents - there's ample reason to abolish them) or planes (air polluters, fuel wasters to boot, potential terrorist weapons - never forget!). I would easily defend why they could and should all be abolished, at least in inhabited areas. But those are not our topic.Friendship is not something that can be regulated by law, it is not a legal institution like marriage, so this comparison is totally missing the point, and deliberately so.Electricity does not need to be abolished, technical advances can make electricity safer to use. So this comparison is missing the point, too.The internet does not inflict harm on people. It is only a medium. People insulting others via internet is illegal already. Fraud via internet is illegal. All harmful internet activity has been outlawed. So, this is actually a point for my case.Fire places are not our topic, but I could build a VERY strong case for their abolition. Same goes for candles.Swimming pools can be totally secured to prevent children from drowning. AND SO ON.Marriage cannot be compared to any of these things. Cars, planes, trains, rope etc. all serve a PRACTICAL PURPOSE. Marriage does not, it is nothing but a formal rite pertaining to religion or a fiscal advantage program. Taxes can be reduced for all registered couples, and religion is not a subject of the law. There is literally no legal reason for marriage. It could easily be abolished.Actually, my above source states that marriage is becoming less popular among heterosexual couples already:"many people, especially of the younger generation, are choosing to cohabitate rather than get legally married." from: http://thesavvysisterhood.com...This is a testament to the fact that marriage is not in and of itself something that the younger generation wants at all costs. Gay couples only want to be allowed to get married because heterosexual couples are allowed to do so. They see it as a sign of equality. But abolishing marriage altogether would do just the same.Hence, marriage serves no purpose, becomes less popular and could be abolished without a lot of problems, resulting in the marriage equality my opponent desires. Why make costly and complicated legal changes to a system that is already beginning to become obsolete, when a simple abolition will do the same? The tax payer will have to pay for the complex law work needed to figure out how gay marriage can be reconciled with the existing system. A quick and clean abolition of marriage will be swifter, cheaper and obviously following a trend that has already begun."Some divorced people go on to be remarried and live happy lives": My source agrees, but the percentage of these "some people" is horrifyingly low: "60-67% of second marriages end in decline. For subsequent marriages, there is a failure rate greater than 70%." from: http://thesavvysisterhood.com... This means that the more marriages a person has endured, the less happy they become in marriage. And the divorce number does not show us the actual number of unhappy couples! A great number of couples remain married despite being unhappy together, for fear of the costs and consequences of a divorce!This is something my opponent totally overlooks. A recent study says that 20% of married couples are unhappy but feel trapped and do not divorce out of fear of the costs: "Millions of Brits are stuck in unhappy marriages but will not walk away for fear of financial or emotional hardship, a report revealed yesterday. A study of 2,000 married people revealed a fifth feel ‘trapped’ and would end their marriage today if their future financial security was assured." From: http://www.slatergordon.co.uk...So, of those couples that remain together after a first divorce (33 to 40%), another fifth is most likely unhappy and fears another divorce, leaving us with less than 30% of happily remarried couples AT BEST. And for their sake we should condemn a great number of gay people to the dire fate of the majority? Is that how we should make laws? By cherry-picking the few examples we find pleasing and ignoring the VAST MAJORITY of the real cases?"Con says it is unfair to children to go through a divorce as if marriage is the only reason parents split and without it would stay together forever.. a complete fallacy." Let's have another look at the statistics. Couples that separate without a divorce:"According to Census data released in 2010, a little over 2 percent of the population claimed to be separated from their spouses. This statistic is less than the number of people claiming to be divorced from their spouses (over 9 percent), and further less still from the percentage of people over the age of 15 who have never been married (30 percent)." from: http://divorce.lovetoknow.com...What does this tell us? 70% of US residents marry at least once. 9% of these 70% get divorced.But only 2% of ALL US citizens live separated from their partners, which includes married and non-married couples, obviously. So we can assume that only around 1% of couples separate without marriage, while 9% divorce and around 1% of married couples separate without divorce. It is thus evident that marriage increases the rate of the split of couples dramatically, from 1% average to 10%, which is an increase by a factor of 10.So, the statistics clearly say that I did not commit a "complete fallacy" of any kind.It is also fairly irrelevant, since I provided a source that clearly states that many children are traumatized specifically by divorce, not separation, as divorce has very specific qualities producing additional stress, those being the legal procedures of sharing custody etc. Unmarried couples have less trouble that way.I have already proved that 10% of all US citizens have been divorced once already. You do not go through the stress of divorce because you're happy with marriage. Hence, theses 10% of the entire population have been made unhappy by marriage.Roughly 20% of married couples are unhappy but fear divorce (given, this is a UK number, but I assume these to be a human factor, not a national one - if you disagree, prove me wrong). They are thus unhappy AND scared, and feel trapped. Since 70% of allUS citizens are or were married, this makes 14% of the entire population, estimated.All these people would not be as unhappy if it were not for the traumatizing and expensive divorce procedure, which only exists because of marriage.We have thus more than 20% of the population of the US (and/or the UK) made unhappy by marriage at some point in their lives. Anything that makes 20% of the population unhappy should be frowned upon. A major source for depression in the US is given as "recently divorced"! See: http://www.healthline.com...Depression is heavily on the rise: "the rate of antidepressant use has surged 400% over the last decade, according to the CDC" according to http://www.marketwatch.com... .This is a major source of public health concerns. Sine divorce is exclusive to marriage, the world would be better off without marriage beyond any reasonable doubt.My opponent is only beating around the bush. So far, the only vague argument he has presented for gay marriage is "marage equality", and I do not even oppose that. I just believe that abolishing marriage is the only true way of achieving marriage equality.