Marriage should not be a legal concept

Response to rebuttals:1. Legal unions are just as unfair as marriage.The advantages of unions can be divided into two subsets: those which are inherent to the concept, and those that the government chooses to give additionally. Those which are inherent include things like the convenience of having a default for medical decisions, the convenience of considering legal and financial assets together, etc. These are inherent abilities which anyone might want to have, and it clearly more "fair" for anyone who wants to to be able to get them. Thus this point is not irrelevant at all as Con claims.In regards to advantages which the Government chooses to give to married couples (such as additional financial concessions), I would contend firstly that if there are to be such concessions, clearly it is more fair to open them up to as many people as possible, but alternatively that I would agree these things should be removed altogether. However, that is a matter for an entirely different discussion. The presence of innate advantages to legal unions is sufficient to say that these abilities should be fairly given to all who desire them.2. Government recognition does not override individual recognitionAs the government is a representative of the people, I would say this is entirely untrue, and strikes at a core principle: the government should absolutely avoid speaking on behalf of societal recognition of anything except where absolutely necessary. If the government says "this is what marriage is", then that does detract from those who disagree. Moreso when the government then assigns practical advantages to its own concept. Furthermore, Con's own arguments are based on his assertion that "Marriage has a special social value in our society". If it is of value, then inappropriately denying some people access to this value is an infringement of individual rights.As to the UCSIS's right to question individuals, I do agree they need to keep undesirable people from being "smuggled" into the country. However I challenge Con to show how confirming that an immigrant has sexual and romantic relations with a citizen does this. It is a waste of resources spent investigating something which has no relation to the matter at hand, and at least partially takes the place of more appropriate investigations.Rebuttals:1) Government should control marriage to prevent incestFirstly, incest can and does occur outside of marriage. Secondly, it is not appropriate for Government to sacrifice individual rights and fairness to discourage activities it believes to be bad for society as a whole. What is best for society has always been secondary to what is fair and just. If a single citizen could sacrifice his life to save ten, but chose not to, would it be appropriate for government to force him to? Claiming an (unmeasured) decrease in the rate of birth defects does not justify restricting individual rights. Would Con support a Government ban on marriages where one or both partners has a genetic defect?2-3) Monogamy has social value over polygamyContrary to Con's assertion, Pro does not take it at face value that monogamy has inherent value to our society. Many polygamous societies have functioned successfully in the past.[1] To my knowledge there has been no study showing a conclusive advantage to a society enforcing monogamy, and in the absence of such proof, I would contend that government has no right to restrict polygamous relationships. I would argue even further, as with my first point, that even if there were such proof, the benefit of society does not outweigh the rights of the individual.4) Gender restrictionsI agree these are highly debated, part of my original point was that this debate should not have involved government for many aforementioned reasons.5) Marriage encourages stability and moral behavior, and thus government should involve itself in preventing its dissolution.In regards to the first point: is this not all the more reason for government not to do anything that restricts who can be married?In regards to the second, I again reiterate my point that government cannot enforce union between two people in the interests of the whole, that is a violation of personal rights. Secondly, if the fact that the government is forcing them two is the only thing causing two people to stay together, I highly doubt this constitutes a "stable household". And if they choose to live apart in spite of their government marriage, than government is not accomplishing anything by insisting they are still legally married anyway.[1]http://www.ilaam.net...