No Marriage

I apologize for my fairly late response and I'll likely keep the closing round brief. ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///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./// The government should have no stake in my personal life. Marriage is ultimately the end result of an emotion that more than half of the time doesn't even last. And I've already given the example that a couple doesn't need to be married to raise a child together or have a stable household. ~ ///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./// Again, I'm not advocating for the removal of marriage, but marriage as it currently is. This point really only supports my point by stating that marriage should be revamped. ~ ///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./// Again, it is not the slip of paper that leads to this increased ability for commitment, it is the buildup of the relationship over time. While the paper does add some level to the commitment it is not the deciding factor as to whether or not commitment is already there. ~ ///Therefore, please extend the fact that marriage helps recognize minority rights, thereby increasing protection of fundamental rights within the U.S./// Marriage doesn't help us recognize minority rights. Marriage, in the context that you're using it in and based on the way it currently is in America, explicitly excludes minorities from participating. ~ ///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?/// Here's a little hypothetical situation: Steve and Joe have been in a relationship for many years and raise a child together that came out of Joe's first marriage, his wife died and he didn't ever love another until Steve came along. Steve and Joe can't go to the courthouse and get a marriage license because marriage is between a man and a woman in the state that they live in. Their only options are for one of them to get married to a woman, abusing the system, or move to a state where gay people can get married, creating a huge burden on themselves. ~ ///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./// You seem to think that I am advocating a system where everyone should be granted the financial benefits when I'm actually advocating for a system where no one does. This is off the debate topic and really not applicable in this debate but I will say that I am also against dependent tax breaks. As you stated, no one forced you to have a dependent, why should you benefit from it? ~ ///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./// Our ideologies differ on this issue, you think the state is obligated to work towards the benefit of society, I think that society is responsible to work towards the benefit of society while being protected from those outside of the society by the government. This point will likely have to be determined by the voters. ~ ///Otherwise, you have this huge contradiction on your hands. Finally, abolishing marriage "as it is in the United States of America" is abolishing marriage./// No it isn't. Is marriage in other countries exactly the same as it is in America? It doesn't matter what the proposed civil benefits package is called. Call it "a,kserjnmhjf" aka "Smash my fists on the keyboard" if you want to, it doesn't matter. ~ I conclusion my proposed alternatives to marriage are acceptable and I believe that I have successfully help up the resolution. I urge a Pro vote.