Marriage is outdated

Round 3 | Rebuttal | by Eav | 17.10.2014 I have to remind my opponent that the debate setting was only open to a forfeiture at the end of the debate, not in the middle. As over the cause of the last days my opponent did not choose to clarify why he forfeited the last round, I take the liberty and regard this as a slight violation of the debate rules. But of course that's finally up to the voters.Rebuttal"Jesus says marriage is good, therefor marriage is good.Ding ding ding, Jesus always wins." - ConThis argument is logically and technically flawed, as will be outlined in the following:1: Technical flaw due to lack of sourcingCon has presented no evidence that Jesus actually considers marriage as "good". But considering Matthew 19:1-12 I would agree that Jesus was very opposed to unfaithfulness and divorce. But he also considered the Law of Moses and it might be concluded that he already admitted, that practically divorce is something the average relationship might run into (Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. - Matthew 19:8-9). Though he therefore considered it sin, he showed consideration for a real-life problem that relationships don't work out. What I could not find is a source for Jesus actually considering marriage as necessary. As he was never married himself (according to the Bible at least) I'd say that would be rather hypocritical anyway. Therefore the actual claim that Jesus said that marriage would be good is neither sourced nor do I actually see the relevance to the topic that we are talking about, because Con has not made clear what the consequences of marriage being "good" is. That we have to be married traditionally? That we have to get married? 2: Logical flaws2a: Religion as a relevant authorityCon's argument relies fully on the authority of religion for that matter. As this debate aims not to attack people who choose to stay in live long relationships rather than to attack people who think that this should be the case for everyone. Meaning that those who are religious and want to engage in a marriages that are supported by their lord sure can do that. For example while Government law accepts divorces, the Catholic Church does not. In the eyes of the Catholic Church, re-marrying and living with a new partner is not possible, because the bond with your first partner holds. You would be plain unfaithful. That mimics exactly what Jesus says in Matthew 19:1-12.But as this debate primarily attacks the legal outline of marriages and that they still rely on this religious believes that should not find their way into government regulations, we can even criticise that strongly referring to Jesus opinion of marriage is discriminative against people of other religions. Putting it together: Legally supported traditional marriage is not exactly what Jesus would consider marriage (as it supports divorces) but even if it would be, that would make it wrong because it's overlapping with other peoples freedom to follow their religious believes in marriage. Still actually relevant should be non of the religious believes in marriage as these religious have their own wedding ceremonies that run parallel to legal marriage ceremonies and therefore everyone can choose to be married in the eyes of the government and/or married in the eyes of his god(s). Otherwise we'd run into serious problems when it comes to consider the laws of the religions on marriage, childcare and abuse. 2b: Jesus always winsConsidering how Jesus not wanted to die ("Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me" - Luke 22:42) but still had to, I'd say in this case God was the one who won the fight and got his way. Just to give one quick example where Jesus did not really win.