Marriage should not be a legal concept

The resolution states that marriage should not be recognized as a legal concept. Pros support for this resolution is to introduce a new concept of “legal unions” in its place, which is essentially a marriage without any regard to the personal relationship of the couple being granted this union. Therefore my position is to show why this new concept is inferior to the current one. Before we can get to any comparisons we must define the difference. First, we should recognize that this is a question about the legal concept, therefore only legal differences apply. As Pro states we must separate and remove the relationship component of what exists now. When looking at the legal elements of marriage that have any affect on relationship status I can find 5 elements(1): - Kinship restrictions (restricts family members from marrying)- Monogamy (allows adultery to be a legal reason for divorce)- Polygamy (marrying more then one person at a time)- Gender restrictions (not valid in all states)- Separation These are the only differences I am aware of and will proceed based on this understanding. If Pro is aware of any additional differences, as instigator it is his responsibility to show them. For the remainder of this debate Pros concept will simply be referred to as “legal unions”(unless Pro as the author decides to name it something else). Rebuttal 1. Unfair advantages of marriage While I have much to say about Pros rebuttal to this point, it is entirely irrelevant as this is consistent in both concepts. Legal unions would simply offer the benefits to more people but still not everyone will take advantage of it, leaving it to be just as unfair as it was before. 2. Governments infringement on individual rights Pro still asserts that marriage tramples on individuals rights because of the government taking a role in the recognition of it. Recognition is nothing more then a subjective point of view, which everyone has a right to. The government is not taking that right away. The government is simply choosing to recognize married couples legally as being married, and offer benefits that come along with it. If Pro wishes to support his claim he must show what rights are being taken away, rather then just asserting that the government recognizing something somehow takes away another persons right to recognize it. Pro also listed the UCSIS’s right to question a couple’s personal interaction as a violation of an individual right to privacy. The UCSIS has this right because of the need of this country to control immigration and prevent people from essentially being “smuggled” into it. This has little to do with marriage and in fact would only create a bigger problem if legal unions were to replace marriage. Counter Argument Marriage has a special social value in our society, which is why it is recognized in the first place. Pros legal union concept completely denies that value and essentially renders the entire purpose of recognizing a couples status as pointless. I will demonstrate that social value using the 5 elements which separate the two concepts being debated: 1. Kinship While sadly there are many brothers and sisters, cousins etc… that wish to get married current laws do not allow that. This is to provide additional discouragement of incest. Currently society discourages this quite adamantly but government has an additional interest in not allowing this in marriage to help prevent birth defections. 2. Monogamy This is another obvious concept that has social value. Love and commitment are what define marriage and make it special. It is something that I think even Pro would agree should be valued in our society. 3. Polygamy Although some disagree, this is mostly considered to be negative in our society as it is simply the opposite of monogamy and thus denies its special value. 4. Gender Restrictions Highly debated and does not apply in all states. 5. Separation. Perhaps the most valuable. This encourages stability in our society and in households which increases the quality of family life. It is highly accepted that children benefit from being raised in a stable household where both parents or guardians live together, and can be easily accepted that people living with a significant other are typically more mentally healthy, and less likely to be involved in illegal activity. Marriage helps to encourage all of these benefits among many others. Conclusion While my counter argument was brief, it is more then sufficient to negate the resolution by showing that marriage currently has a special value on society and should be recognized as a legal concept. Pros concept of a legal union which essentially deprives that special value holds no benefits. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...