The government should stay out of marriage altogether.

This site is particularly guilty of people posting debate topics then in round two pulling out all sorts of things that really should have been in the initial argument. I was bringing up the civil union thing just to avoid wasting rounds redefining the argument in case that was what you were planning on bringing up. I know it's not a classical debate method, but it's sometimes necessary when not everyone has the same idea of debate. Since you didn't give a functional method for your proposed system to work, I'll give you a worksheet to build the argument from. I think the legal vehicle binding one person to another is an effective way of more efficiently assigning those rights. As a database administrator I can say from experience that administrating rights to individual users piece by piece is technically feasible, but totally unmanageable in reality. If we didn't have assigned roles, my company, for one, would grind to a screeching halt. In the case of custody, every time a couple had a child they would have to sign joint custody papers. You could potentially make an agreement doing that by default for all future children. But you would also have to have separate forms allowing for: visitation rights power of attorney immigration rights jointly owned assets family insurance plans (health, vehicle, home owner, etc) inheritance right to wrongful death benefits spousal privelage retirement assets (pensions, social security, etc) bereavement/sick leave to care for spouse marriage rights when traveling change of last name (not impossible, but easier with marriage) and child support among others, and that doesn't even cover benefits given by non-government organizations that would essentially immediately become impossible to offer. In my city there is a Sports Center, for instance, that allows for family plans. Without a legal definition for marriage how would we prove that it is, indeed, a family? Custody of the kids? Jointly owned house? How would this be any less of an arbitrary system than marriage currently is? Also, each benefit would be subject to its own laws and regulations that would have to be proven in each case as if these were two unconnected private individuals entering into a contract. And what if congress still decides that spousal visitation isn't permitted between two members of the same gender? How does this make the line any more well-defined? It still doesn't solve the problem of the double standard. If anything it just makes the gray area less like a fuzzy line and more like a fuzzy sailor's knot. We could pass legislation that would unify the grounds on which these forms would be accepted or denied. And the more of the above privileges we allow to be elected on one form, the more it starts to sound like marriage with extra paperwork. We could also make some method of combining elected benefits without directly specifying that each and every one of the benefits would necessarily have to be included like a series of checkboxes. And if we did, I bet even fewer couples would stay together. Picture John Doe checking everything but pension benefits. It'd be like a forced prenup. Admittedly, the resulting preemptively failed marriages would solve a lot of our overpopulation woes with all the folks saving themselves for marriage, but I think the cons outweigh the pros here. Aremis