Marriage should not be a legal concept

Thanks Pro four initiating this debate. Resolution The resolution states that marriage should not be recognized as a legal concept, however Pro states in his first contention that marriage should be replaced by a “union which confers all of the legal rights and status of marriage, but is not in any way dependent on the nature of the relationship between the participants”. I find this to be not only inconsistent with Pros resolution, but also contradictory to his next two points as the legal rights of married couples seem to be the basis of his arguments. Also, the only place in marriage law I can find where the nature of the relationship plays any role is adultery, which is a legal cause for divorce(1). For the law to conform to Pros opening contention, apparently all we would have to do is remove adultery as a legal cause for divorce which is clearly not what this debate is about and not what Pro continues to argue for with his next two points. This debate is clearly intended to be about weather marriage (including civil unions) should be recognized as a legal concept. Pros resolution clearly states that they should not be, my intent is to show that they should. I am unclear as to what Pro is suggesting with his first contention, so I will refute his next two points and then leave it to Pro to clarify his contentions in round two before offering a counter argument. Rebuttals 1. Being married gives obvious and practical legal and financial advantages Pro states that the financial advantages of being married constitute a form of enforced, unjustified payment by single individuals to married ones. Taxes are payments by Americans to support programs that the government decides to implement. When the government gives tax breaks to certain groups of Americans it comes at the expense of government programs, not other Americans. It is easy to draw a connection by saying that if one group would pay more then another could pay less but such reasoning has no logical basis as to who is entitled to the hypothetical benefit of. Pro is simply choosing the viewpoint that benefits his argument. 2. The gay marriage debate Pro states that the government’s involvement in defining the legitimacy of personal relationships somehow tramples individual rights, apparently this is because it offers societal advantages. I do not understand what Pro is trying to say with this argument. Individual rights have nothing to do with advantages of married couples. If a person does not want these advantages then they should not get married. Pro also states that a gay couple should be able to get a “union” as any other couple. He also states that “none of this need government”. This again contradicts his own point. If the government should not be involved then how would the couple be able to gain recognition as a union in the first place? Conclusion Pros argument does not support his resolution and his points at times seem contradictory. I will leave it for Pro to clarify what he is arguing for so that I can understand exactly what I should be negating. I assume that Pros round 2 argument will be consistent with his resolution that marriage should not be recognized as a legal concept. With that said I turn it over to pro and wish him good luck. (1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...