Sex Before Marriage and Multiple Sex Partners Causes Economic Stress, Unwanted Pregnancies and STDs

Thank you very much for the opening argument and for the debate as a whole. I am very excited. In order for prop to win this debate they must show 3 things: Firstly that sex before marriage and polygamy result in the spread of STD"s. Secondly that sex before marriage and multiple sexual partners result in unwanted pregnancies. Crucially and finally they must prove that pre-marital sex and polygamy result in economic stress. When we move on to economic stress we encounter issues regarding the definition of economic stress, which is not a formal economic term. Taking it on the definition most commonly used, economic stress is when people struggle financially. However prop has not used this definition, they have argued more about the effect of these social issues on the U. S. economy as a whole. So I shall take props definition, which is dangerously vague and this debate principally hangs on props definition of economic stress, i. e. how much the economy would have to be impacted for this to be classified as economic stress. Prop has not provided a definition and any given after this opening argument will be considered invalid as it could simply be used to fit props argument. I will take it to mean significant harm to GDP and economic growth. It"s important to start from basic principles. The argument that having multiple sexual partners will directly result in the spread of STD"s is sound, con accepts the prop argument that maintaining a single sexual partner will significantly reduce the spread of STD"s. However, pre-marital sex is not by definition polygamous, so therefore that is inherently not the issue. The spread of STD"s is not decreased by a ceremony in a church and recognition from the state. As evidenced marriage is fairly irrelevant within the debate about STD"s. However, due to the phrasing of the debate prop has successfully demonstrated that sex does lead to the spread of STDs. It would painfully ignorant to argue that sex before marriage and multiple sexual partners do not result in unwanted pregnancies. However it is important to note that unwanted pregnancies occur within monogamous marriages and monogamous relationships. This is self-evidently true. Between 2006 and 2010 married couples gave birth to nearly 3 million unintended children, therefore the argument that sex before marriage and having multiple sexual partner"s results in unwanted children is fundamentally undermined by the fact that it happens irrespective of marriage (. http://www.cdc.gov...). However again because of the phrasing of the proposition they have successfully proved that yes, sex does lead to unwanted pregnancies. This is a virtually impossible point to contend although it is notable that polygamy and pre-marital sex are not by definition the causes. Alcohol, poor sex education and the ineffectiveness of contraceptive devices undoubtedly play a significant part. In fact there is a strong argument to be made that it is not polygamy or pre-marital sex that are causing the spread of STD"s and unwanted pregnancies. Both of these things are perfectly preventable using condoms or other contraceptives. Would prop concede that pre-marital sex and polygamy are not the social issues we should be dealing with, rather we should be dealing with the U. S. attitude towards contraception and sex education? Moving on to economic stress. There has been no evidence offered by prop to demonstrate the economic impact of STD"s and unwanted pregnancies so I believe this fundamentally undermines the prop argument. While it is true STD"s and unwanted pregnancies do result in some economic harm, in the long run this is not harming economic growth for a number of reasons. The argument that parents that do not financially support their children damage the economy as the U. S. government spends less than watertight. Crucially this is an entirely different social issue, this is parental responsibility not polygamy or pre-marital sex. 45% of single mothers were in monogamous relationships, this increases to over half for single fathers (. http://singleparents.about.com...) so parents not contributing to the care of the child happens regardless of monogamy and marriage. Even if we accept that pre-marital sex and polygamy are the social issue there are a few points of contention. Once again a lack of evidence to show how much money is spent supporting single parents fundamentally undermines props argument. Furthermore the money not spent raising the child is not lost, it is invested back in to the economy, the "dead beat" father uses that money to buy items or invests it in a bank and therefore it is invested in props favourite destination: small businesses. Which is another issue, prop has created this myth that money invested in small businesses is a) crucial to the economy and b) is being diverted to deal with STD"s and to support single parents. The money the U. S. government invests in "general economic, commercial and labor" (a category small businesses would fall under) is a tiny proportion of state expenditure (. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...). Furthermore the amount invested is irrelevant to amount spend on welfare. This two issues are not in any way connected. Covering STDs briefly, they cost the U. S. medical sector roughly $16 billion dollars (. http://www.cdc.gov...) however I would question props reasoning as to what happens to this money? It pay doctors and nurses fees and supports pharmaceutical companies. Surely, this is beneficial to the economy? Once I again I am forced to reiterate however, that it is not polygamy and pre-marital sex that are the issue. HPV (the most prominent STD) is largely preventable by a vaccine. In fact all STDs are preventable by condoms and other forms of protection. Once again, are we not forced to concede that it is the attitude towards contraceptives that are the issue? Another factor to consider is the economic advantages of sex before marriage and having multiple sexual partners. Bars, nightclubs and alcohol all contribute significantly to the economy, the alcohol industry alone contributed $400 billion in 2010 (. http://www.discus.org...). I have no evidence to support this, but how many people go to the nightclubs, bars and drink alcohol in order to have sex with a stranger? I would wager it was a significant motivator, particularly among young men. Pre-marital sex also contributes to society by enabling relationships and by extension supporting the restaurant and gift industry. On a more psychological note, sex in general is important to people. Being sexually active is an important thing to lots of people and helps keep them happy and prevents them developing depression. Depression is a huge drain on the U. S. economy principally due to lost work days and the loss of skilled workers due to suicide. A further issue prop has to cover is what alternative they would offer. Pre-marital sex occurs because people want to. People have multiple sexual partners, because they want to. Even if we accept they do cause economic damage (which I have conclusively proven that they don"t), how do we stop them? Make it illegal to have sex before marriage or with more than one person? I"m curious to hear props answer to this issue.