Marriage should be legal in the United States.

Thank you, Mongeese, for the debate. I'm going to try to keep this round short. Neither of my opponent's attempts to discredit the constitutionality of legal marriage nor his attempt to show that legal marriage is discriminatory can withhold scrutiny. Reiterating my old arguments would simply be belaboring the point. However, Mongeese has conveniently packaged some new assertions in one neat bundle, so I will try my best to unpack them. ::Case Pro- Rebuttals:: In conclusion, when it comes to marriage: 1. If government does not discriminate at all when it comes to who can be married, as my opponent proposes, then people will marry fifty other people just to take advantage of multiple tax breaks or other discriminatory benefits. At no point in this debate have I argued for polygamy or that the government should recognize all marriage arrangements. Your assertion misrepresents my position. [1] Moreover, the conclusion you draw (from information unknown to me) is nothing more than a non sequitur. [2] There is nothing about legally sanctioned marriages that necessarily implies that we allow polygamy. If anything, financially motivated polygamy would be an inevitable component of the quick and easy internet marriages Mongeese has beckoned us to. 2. Having to marry to receive benefits not necessarily connected to marriage is illogical. Why would it be illogical? Marriage carries many responsibilities (that I have already outlined) that are not associated with being single. 3. It does not make sense to force business partners to have the social connotation of marriage over their head if they do not want it, or a brother and sister to have to marry to handle each other's end-of-life issues. I fail to see the logic that connects either of these assertions to what we have been arguing about. If I want my brother to handle my end of life issues then I can legally have that arranged without having to marry him. 4. All rights currently given by marriage should either not exist (should it be unwarranted benefits like tax cuts, that harm most of the people in having to pay extra taxes) or be allowed to everybody (should it be something to get by a zero-sum regulation placed by government in the first place, such as hospital visits or end-of-life issues). It would appear as if Mongeese can't see the contradictory nature of his own arguments. My opponent may think his proposal would lead to an egalitarian society. But his arguments are inegalitarian in the extreme. They essentially mandate that people should all be treated equally even if they clearly deserve more than other people. Married couples need to look out for each other and their kids, if they have any. This alone is reason enough to give them certain benefits that single people don't receive. 5. Government contract is not required for social pressure, as evidenced by my opponent's own analogy. "If two people go about saying that they are, for all practical purposes, married, then society would view them as such, and therefore, the social pressure would exist. Why do we need government to tell us what do do with our social pressure?" Social pressure is an aspect of society and it exists to different degrees in different areas. Of course, people can pinkie-swear to get "married," but such arrangements (including those done over the internet) are inherently unstable. Legal contracts tighten social contracts (e.g. marriage) in a way that non legal contracts often do not. Moreover, the system for marriage you have outlined would most certainly lead to heavy abuse. Your proposal is, in fact, nothing more than a giant loophole for greedy people who don't want to pay taxes. Sure, people can get married just to receive benefits, but the legal implications of getting married makes the process just difficult enough to discourage hordes of unscrupulous people from abusing the system. ======= Conclusion ======= Throughout this debate we have seen no good reasons that marriage should be abolished as a legal institution. If anything, the problems inherent to my opponents own position far outweigh the perceived difficulties he sees with legal marriages. Marriage is a bonding agent for society. It helps people provide a safe environment to raise a family, among other things. Encouraging marriage is therefore a key component of any functional society. Consequently, the government should encourage marriage by making it legal and subsidizing it with benefits. This approach, it would seem, is more apt than my opponent's to produce a maximally healthy and functional society. For these reasons I strongly encourage everyone to stand with me in affirming this motion. (Vote Pro) ---References--- 1.http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org...