No Marriage

In between stuffing boxes, I had a very enjoyable time reviewing his post. :) Pro Case: On Contention 1: 1. My opponent misses the point of that entire argument, unfortunately. It isn't the license itself that encourages anything. The benefits arising from such a contract are the state's way of expressing approval for committed behavior. The license is the government's way of rewarding what is supposed to be a lifelong commitment to creating a nuclear family. 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. 2. I figured the divorce statistic would come up sooner or later. Not a problem, and here's why: this does nothing unique to convince us that abolishing marriage is any sort of solution. While the concept of marriage is clearly in trouble, that is, as stated before, not a valid reason to scrap marriage all together. If the goal is to encourage more deep-seeded commitment, then abolishing an institution that rewards commitment is probably a bass-akwards way of doing it. While the system of rewards may need to be revamped, or educational opportunities may need to be seized to encourage a respect for the institution of marriage, banning it won't gain any positive good or improve what that divorce rate *really* indicates: that the American people have a distorted view of commitment. 3. The warrant for marriage leading to other commitments is logical, rather than statistical. If we can both agree that relationship-based commitment begets the ability to commit to other tasks (which my opponent concedes to), and marriage is another commitment, then the proof is there. The license, again, is the state encouraging such commitments to flourish. On Contention 2: 1. This isn't a response to my argument. While my opponent's job is to point out what's wrong with marriage, I have every right to point out what good can come of it. This is simple cost-benefit analysis. Even if my opponent, in the end, can prove that the financial aspects of marriage are unwarranted (which I don't think he can), if the institution's benefits to humanity outweigh in another capacity, you will vote Con based on net benefit. Therefore, please extend the fact that marriage helps recognize minority rights, thereby increasing protection of fundamental rights within the U. S. Con Case: On Contention 1: Unequal benefits My opponent assumes here that marriage licenses are just impossible to get. If one of these unmarried couples wants these benefits, they simply need to seek a license, and benefits shall ensue. If they are already committed at home, then why not claim one's voucher of recognition from the state? It's like claiming a dependent on taxes. Would my opponent also argue that people should be able to take dependents into account on their 1040's without proving to the state that they exist? The question we should be asking is "why were these unmarried couples unwilling to go to a courthouse on their day off and pick up that license? " One can only receive benefits from the state if one seeks recognition from the state. Now, if you are gay, then you probably can't get this recognition. Remember: I am the only one that can solve for these inequalities between gay and straight couples, as stated in my unrefuted 2nd contention. Furthermore, extend all that stuff I said about equity and some benefits not being a matter of rights in this context. Do all citizens have the "right" to a dependent tax break if they choose not to have children (since this is a lifestyle choice, as well)? No, because it doesn't work that way. Some benefits are given as a matter of equity. Married couples will, on balance, require more income to survive . The calculus of coupling has been carefully factored into our existing tax system. Immigration Actually, application for citizenship is still a necessity, as well as a very rigorous INS process which requires applicants to display some sort of evidence of a pre-existing relationship prior to entering the country. My rebuttal here was to counter immigration practice as a reason to abolish marriage. I was merely asserting that this isn't actually much of a "privilege," and was never intended to be. On Contention 2: Financial Benefits 1. The reason I assumed that my opponent was trying to avoid the financial debate is because he defined "civil benefits" specifically as non-financial, and then never mentions tax breaks or the finances of marriage in his case. If that's a misunderstanding, consider it cleared up now. However, it is curious that my opponent's objection to the financial benefits given to married couples was never mentioned in RD 1. He only ever mentions civil benefits, and is careful to define them as non-financial. 2. My opponent makes the assertion that "most competent individuals don't need assistance from the government to thrive. " That desperately needs a warrant. The reason we have a system of progressive taxes is because, over the course of running the country, we've discovered that competence doesn't necessarily relate at all to ability to survive. If we have to get into a mini-debate about fiscal policy, we can do that, but I don't think we have the characters available. I maintain that the financial benefits of married couples are designed to assist them in survival as well as encourage committed coupling. "Part Two" "Part two" was a cross-application, not a restatement, but that makes my job easier, as I can just forward readers to my extensive rebuttal to his on my contention 1. Extend this. On the Conclusion: Alternative 1: Marriage Licenses… So, you want to keep marriage, but get rid of all the financial benefits associated with it? Would that not still violate the basic principle of your advocacy, which is to favor couples who choose to label themselves as married via the state? Furthermore, you state: "there should be some form of legal contract that grants most of the civil benefits granted by marriage to a couple. " Your 2nd contention is about how all those civil benefits can be gained in ways other than via a marriage license (i. e. we don't need marriage because you can get its benefits in other, better ways). Either you gain absolutely no offense off of your 2nd contention, or you are required to give up your solution. Otherwise, you have this huge contradiction on your hands. Finally, abolishing marriage "as it is in the United States of America" is abolishing marriage. Alternative 2: Lifestyle Choice Giving them as examples of other, voluntary lifestyle choices is a direct comparison. I was attacking your proposed alternative on the basis that, while that alternative works perfectly well for vegan-ism or nudism, it fails miserably for marriage. Your alternative fails as an alternative because, as I stated in RD 1: "Unlike a sexual orientation that will result in the pairing of individuals who will share some portion of their entire lives with another, me choosing to not ingest meat or dairy products will most likely not lead directly to a nuclear family, a shared household, or any number of different life changes that a partnering would result in. "