Cohabilitation offers more benefits to men than Marraige

I will first refute my opponent's case before presenting my own. == PRO'S CASE == 1) My opponent brings up the need, if both people are average income earners for their gender. First of all, this is a bad assumption to make, as while there is an average, most couples will not fall into that average. For example, the average male height in the US is 5'10" [1], but only a small percentage are actually at that height. Of course, even if we accept this completely average couple, being married would save $720 annually on federal income taxes [2] alone (state taxes will, of course, vary from state to state). And the further their incomes are apart, the greater the savings. This will be addressed in more depth in my arguments. 2) My opponent says "federal tax laws favor unmarried taxpayers in several cases. " However, his source does not back this up. While his source does "say" this same thing, it does not offer a single tax advantage, nor source its claim. I will go on to show in my case that taxes actually benefit the married. 3) Here, my opponent dives into the raising of a child. This entire argument is not supported by facts, nor honest logic. The first issue that we see is a straw man fallacy. In this debate, we are comparing marriage vs cohabitation. To honestly do that, we need to remove alternative factors and variables. As such, to compare for a child, we must assume that the couple raising the child is the same. In the same situation, same degree of love and care, same everything, other than the marriage certificate. This is not what my opponent does, but rather say that a loving cohab is better than a hateful marriage and that is evidence for the cohab. What is important to raising children is not a piece of paper that says "married," but rather the relationship that the two adults have, and that relationship being strong and staying together. The problem with cohab on this front is that they are three times more likely to break up before a child turns 5 than a marriage (1 in 3 cohab will break up before the child is 5, compared to 1 in 10 marriages [3]). This will be readdressed in my arguments. 4) This section simply says that there is no difference and does not suggest that one is better than the other. Since it is not supporting my opponent, I will save space. 5) The divorce section has some issues of concern that must be addressed. First of all, divorce can cost next to nothing. It entirely depends on how well each party can agree to divide their assets before going to the courts. Uncontested divorces make up about 95% of divorces in the US [4] and is the cheapest form, because there is no legal fighting. My opponent also fails to realize there can be legal expenses with cohab break ups. If living in apartments, both will have to be on the lease (a legally binding contract). If they are living in a home, they are likely both on the loan (since that will show more income to provide a better, cheaper rate), or if one is making enough money for all of that, then you can refer back to the tax advantages which only get better for marriage the greater the income gap. Contracts that need to be gone over in the case of a break up can go all the way down to family plan cell phone plans. == CON'S CASE == 1) Taxes This is simply and straight forward. Marriage provides tax breaks that can add up the massive amounts over the years, especially if the two are making a significantly different amount of income. In the example that my opponent provided of average incomes, a $8,100 difference resulted in $720 difference for federal income tax (9% of the difference). If the guy is making an extra $7,500 and the girl is making $7,500 less (so they still have the same combined pay), then you are looking at a $1470 difference in the federal taxes alone [2]. 2) Prenuptials Since the US currently recognizes most prenupts (within reason) [5], any concern regarding alimony, child support, losing half of your stuff (though it never was "your" stuff, they paid for part of it if they were working, as our averages are) can easily be prevented. 3) Access My opponent uses an example of two working adults making average money. While they may have the option of cohab vs marriage, cohab is not as logically for many others. In cases with a single working person, with someone living with them (or someone working just part time), one person may not be able to be independent at the drop of a hat (we can also turn back to how massive the tax benefits are when incomes vary widely), and since cohabitations break up far more often, they present greater risk and uncertainty for someone, which leaves them more susceptible to leveraged bargaining. In summary, it is simply that with the advantages of federal tax breaks for all not making the exact same dollar amount (99.997% of couples) added with the fact that a simple prenuptial can prevent most of the legal issues and cost with a less likely break up, marriage is the better option for the vast majority of Americans, both average and not so average. Thank you [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.paycheckcity.com... [3] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...