Traditional Marriage

If Pro could clarify the intended purpose of the debate, I would be appreciative, I believed I was working within the boundaries of the topic. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Pro for engaging in this debate. Now to the task at hand: 1. There has only been a slight percentage increase in the number of reportedly unwanted pregnancies, and it corresponds with the overall increase in pregnancy rates in America. Further, of the total number of unwanted pregnancies from 2001 to 2008, 1/3rd of them were conceived by married couples. This demonstrates the indirect correlation, but not the causation Pro assumes. At least one third of unintended pregnancies are the result of Pro's "traditional family structure." SOURCE: http://www.guttmacher.org... 2. Pro assumes children born into non "traditional" households are not ideal, which is Pro's stated opinion, but no support was provided. Pro is assuming "non-traditional" equates to "broken". I argue Children born into non-traditional family structures where love is present, allow for the same opportunities as a "traditional" family. SOURCE: http://www.nlm.nih.gov... 3. Divorce statistics only hurt Pro's argument, that Traditional Marriage is superior morally, or that it is more stable or sustainable. Clearly "traditional marriages" end in failure at least half of the time. If Pro would like to engage in an entirely separate argument regarding the state of morality in society, that is another debate subject with much broader implication than marriage. Further, no statistics, sources or citations have been made to establish a moral decline in society. I would gladly engage in that debate. 4. As to children born out of wedlock. Each citation does not take into account the socioeconomic status of the single parent. Children born to impoverished, "traditionally" married parents are much more likely to become pregnant out of wedlock. This is an issue of systemic poverty, rather than one of morality or tradition. SOURCE: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu... Further, shotgun weddings are no longer as prominently culturally enforced, thus driving down the post conception engagements. This means even in the "good old days" many children were conceived before marriage, yet were born into married households. If we correlate this statistic with the figures from the above link, we can determine poverty, rather than a single-parent household, is far more of a factor which influences teen pregnancy and out of wedlock pregnancy. SOURCE: http://www.brookings.edu... Additionally, correlation does not imply causation. Out of wedlock pregnancy and crime are both related to poverty, not the inverse. Pro's provided source states: "While Kendall and Tamura found that more out-of-wedlock births are associated with higher subsequent crime rates over the last 45 years, they found just the opposite for years prior to 1965. In the 1940s and 1950s, small increases out-of-wedlock births actually correlated to lower subsequent murder rates." SOURCE: Read more at: http://phys.org... Also, there is no evidence of Pro's claim that children born to single mothers are more likely to be of low birth weight. Pro did not provide a source for this assumption. Pro's link justifying the assumption which have been addressed also uses statistics taken from couples who are unmarried, but choose to have children, thus Pro's assertion that the statistics accurately reflect their argument is misleading. 5. Pro seeks to use the Christian Bible as a justification for their assumptions, which has no place in this current discussion. Pro claims my perspective is limited, yet offers no indication as to why. Pro assumes that because I am not agreeing with them, that I do not share their religious knowledge. Pro distracts from their losing argument through the use of a subjective moral system which is a vast departure from the subject of the debate. America does not have a Judeo-Christian founding, nor are Judeo-Chrisitan values paramount to the nation's legal system. The founding fathers were an assortment of deists, atheists, anti-church agnostics and a small handful of Christians. SOURCE: http://hnn.us... SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org... SOURCE: https://www.au.org... Pro has not provided a single source to the contrary. Pro repeats their original assertion regarding the assumption of "traditional marriage's superiority, yet provides no additional sources aside from their own conviction and proclaimed piety. Pro uses rhetoric, calling out of wedlock sexual relations " a cancer", this belies a clear bias, and is again, unsupported by any facts or sources, aside from Pro's vehemence, which has little to no academic value. Pro attempts to connect crime against children and women as being connected with a move away from the 'biblical tradition', however, these crimes have been decreasing statistically as our society begins to view women on an equal level with men. Again, Pro fails to cite examples, sources or proof for their assumptions. SOURCE: http://mattbruenig.com... This statistic shows a clear correlation, though not a causation, of the decline of 'traditional marriage' coinciding with a decline in rape and sexual assault against women. This demonstrates Pro's arbitrary claim regarding the increase in violence toward women was statistically false. Pro should consider the role many Catholic priests played in the molestation of children before claiming it is a break from biblical tradition which contributes to these types of crimes. Pro continues a long-winded sermon regarding their personal faith, which has no compelling argument for or against traditional marriage. In closing: Pro believes faith alone is justification for their assumption of the superiority of "traditional marriage", yet Pro has not established the validity of their 'tradition', nor has Pro provided verifiable sources to support their argument. The sources Pro did provide, offered conflicting statistics which do not support the broad generalizations and faith based assumptions Pro has continuously asserted. Pro asks that society examine the evidence, which Pro has chosen not to provide. Pro assumes out of wedlock pregnancies are the result of a "Anything is permissible lifestyle,", which belies a myopic and and stereotypical perception of unwed mothers. Pro assumes non-traditional relationships also are the result of the aforementioned lifestyle, again, without support. Pro states that premarital sex and non-traditional relationships "threatens to remove this institution," which is unfounded, unsupported and an example of the slippery slope fallacy. Pro states that cohabitation, homosexuality and promiscuity are not things we should "teach our children to aspire to", which indicates a cultural bias against gay and transgender individuals. Pro asks what my point of view is, which is not the purpose of this debate, which was a challenge Pro incited. The entire purpose of addressing a challenge was to rebut Pro's assertion. Through a thorough examination of the provided statistics, and by absorbing the nuances of these rebuttals, my position is easily discernible. Pro uses a number of appeals to emotion. Pro states I should provide an alternative to "traditional marriage", but that is not the purpose of our debate. Secular unions would be an example, like the one my wife and I share. http://family-law.lawyers.com... Pro's data is subjective, their argument circumstantial.