No Marriage

Thank you one last time to the Pro for this excellent debate. I, too, apologize for my tardy response. Moving, graduate school, a second debate, and general life implosion stopped me from posting sooner. :) I'll be presenting some analysis on key voting issues I think have emerged in the last 2.5 rounds. Voter 1: State's Interest in Encouraging Commitment/Nuclear Families My opponent has said two things to counter the state's interest in encouraging accountability and commitment via nuclear families: that the government should have no stake in his personal life, and that couples don't have to be married to raise a child or have a stable household. These are the same things that he gave during the previous round, without deference to the responses I provided to them in RD 2. Allow me to remind voters why this argument is still a valid reason to vote Con: -"As my sources and case state, nuclear families with two parents produce statistically more healthy children. Of course, there are exceptions to every statistical proof, but that doesn't inherently devalue my data. The state need only encourage what maximizes societal good."—I don't have to prove that every single family must be nuclear to maximize benefit to the state. My evidence has yet to be refuted, so I am currently winning the cost/benefit analysis in this debate. At the point where the institution of state-sanctioned marriage is providing more good than bad, you vote Con. -The state, according to the basic philosophical and political tenets that comprise this nation's government, does have an obligation to maximize societal welfare and individual citizen welfare (see Locke and Rousseau). The state only exists to serve the citizens who compose it, which means that one's individual life, at times, cannot be separated from the state. Since I already discussed how the institution of marriage does not, in fact, violate any civil rights possessed by a citizen, and maximizes societal and individual benefit in more than one way, there's valid reason for the government to offer this incentive as a vehicle to greater prosperity. Furthermore, marriage is hardly a trendsetter in this department. Voter 2: Marriage Licenses vs. What They Stand For Again, it is not the slip of paper that leads to this increased ability for commitment, it is the buildup of the relationship over time. While the paper does add some level to the commitment it is not the deciding factor as to whether or not commitment is already there. Since RD 2, we've both agreed that the slip of paper known as a marriage license is not the impetus for commitment and accountability. However, it is the voucher given to you by the state as evidence of such commitment. My opponent has yet to actually address this properly in the debate. Furthermore, this entire line of argumentation is kind of auxiliary to the debate in the first place, since my opponent objects to the rewards provided by the possession of the license. I'm attempting to justify those rewards by explaining the purpose of the marriage institution in general, and my opponent is trying to steal my ground, essentially, by saying "the Con is only allowed to argue about the importance of the license and not the institution of marriage." This goes back to his fuzzy advocacy regarding keeping marriage but getting rid of it at the same time. Voter 3: Benefit to Homosexuals My opponent dropped this entirely in RD 2, and then mishandles it in RD 3. I'm talking about potential solvency for homosexual couples, which has already occurred in a few places. If we eliminate the marriage institution, then we have no hope of allowing that group of people to declare their commitment and have it recognized by the state (unless you buy my opponent's ground-stealing interpretation of the resolution). Currently, certain states do stop homosexuals from marrying. However, the only reason to actually care about this is the abuse of that group in that the government refuses to recognize them as a legitimate couple. Challenging such state laws via the Supreme Court and fighting for the legalization of marriage for the gay community, much like any previous civil rights movement, will do more to equalize homosexuals than any action Pro could propose within the bounds of the resolution. To address my opponent's Steve and Joe hypothetical, Pro can't solve for Steve and Joe. The Con advocacy allows Steve and Joe to at least have the potential of rights recognition from the state. Voter 4: Ideology Clash At the point where my opponent is challenging all financial benefits from the state, he is not just asking us to eliminate marriage. He is asking us to restructure the entire US economy and tax system, which is clearly not within the purview of the debate. I used the dependent tax reduction as an example, but if he objects to the fundamental workings of the US tax system, that's a whole other debate. If we are to properly debate marriage, then we really do need to have some parameters, and we must assume that we will be operating in a relatively predictable world. Voter 5: Alternatives to Marriage by Pro The issue of my opponent's actual stance has become a key issue in this debate. My opponent chose to address only one, single line of a very large piece of analysis on his contradictory position of keeping marriage and eliminating it at the same time. This is key, as he's getting most of his offense from this single issue in the debate. However, I maintain that he hasn't done enough to convince you that he isn't simply stealing Con ground. Allow me to reiterate my reasoning from the previous 2 rounds: -The position of "no marriage" as established in my opponent's case and full resolution clearly indicates abolition, or elimination. "As it is in the United States" makes absolutely zero difference, since it's still an elimination. Changing pieces of it, or advocating that we not eliminate it all together for the benefits, is perfectly acceptable Con ground. I even made sure to address the contradictory remarks he made at the end of RD 1 in which he claimed that, while abolishing something, he could still advocate to keep it. As pointed out in RD 2, he further complicates his position by stating "there should be some form of legal contract that grants most of the civil benefits granted by marriage to a couple." However, his entire 2nd contention in RD 1 was about how civil benefits aren't a reason to keep marriage. That's the contradiction. You lose offense no matter what you choose at that point. -I already covered the problematic nature of considering it merely a lifestyle choice, and that wasn't addressed in RD 2, so extend it again. In conclusion, if we take a look at the cost/benefit analysis coming out of these 3 rounds, a Con vote will result, frankly, in more net benefit. It benefits the individual both fiscally and with regards to "civil benefits." It benefits the state and society in its encouragement of committed, nuclear family household structures. It benefits current civil rights movements and the homosexual community. Con has more than fulfilled its burden, while the Pro's advocacy rests on quasi-affirming. I encourage a Con vote.