Marriage should not be a legal concept

A major premise that Pros entire argument falls on is the notion that marriage somehow infringes on individuals rights. I will begin by showing why this basic premise is false. Individual Rights Concerning Marriage 1. Everyone has the same right to get married Pro paints marriage restrictions as “unfair”, but this is simply not true because the same rules apply to everyone. Brothers, sisters, and individuals in polygamous relationships can all get married just like anyone else, just not to each other so their rights are no different. 2. The government offers recognition and benefits for a reasonWhen the government offers recognition and benefits it does so to encourage what it believes is good for society. If people had a right to these benefits regardless of weather they meet the government’s criteria or not then there would be no point in offering them in the first place.3. Individuals do not have the right to assert their own rules of marriage The only reason marriage restrictions are viewed by some as a rights violation is because of the desire some people have to marry each other. However, the government does not recognize someone simply because they want to be recognized for it. If I want the government to recognize me as a war veteran then I must fight in a war, if I want to be recognized as a lawyer I must pass the Bar exam. A persons desire to be recognized as something, does not give them a right to be recognized for it. 4. Marriage does not restrict anything Pro makes many assertions of what people should be allowed to do. People are allowed to do anything they want to within the law, marriage does not restrict anything in that law. Marriage simply offers recognition and benefits to couples who meet the criteria to get married, and do not offer that recognition or benefits to those who do not meet the legal criteria. With these four basic contentions in mind, let’s continue… Rebuttals 1. “Legal unions are just as unfair as marriages” Pro begins by making a point that people should be allowed to the “convenience of having a default for medical decisions, the convenience of considering legal and financial assets together, etc.” First of all everyone does have this right, its called marriage. Secondly for those who don’t want to get married we have plenty of other ways to handle this. Medical decisions can be made by health proxies, which can be designated to anyone. Financial assets can be handled by a power of attorney which can also be granted to anyone, bank accounts can have co-signers, etc. The only thing I am aware of that people can not do without marriage is file taxes together. There is no reason the government would allow two “buddies” to file taxes together, it serves no purpose to them or to society. All it would do is allow people to take advantage of the tax system. 2. “Government recognition does not overrule individual recognition” Pro begins with his assertion that government should “avoid speaking on behalf of societal recognition”. This brings us back to the question: what is the role of the government? This is a simple answer: the role of the government is to look out for the best interest of society. The best interest of society is decided by representatives chosen by the people, in logical discussions such as this one. If offering incentives to encourage marriage in society is beneficial, then marriage should be recognized as a legal concept. Pros anarchist argument on this issue is not a valid reason to deny society of something which is determined to be beneficial. Pro makes a comment saying that denying people the special social value of marriage somehow denies their rights. The special social value of marriage is defined by what it contributes to society. Pros legal unions do not contribute socially in any way therefore it does not have social value. The government can not take away what was never their to begin with. The USCIC argument is irrelevant at this point but I will simply state the fact that a couple is supposed to have an intimate relationship to be legally married gives the USCIC a starting point in determining if a particular marriage is likely a scam. Pros legal union’s concept makes this harder because it does not matter what the relationship is, so illegal immigration scams will be nearly impossible to detect and therefore impossible stop. Marriage Has Value in Society 1. Kinship Pros argument against kinship restrictions again goes back to individual rights. Brothers and sisters can do whatever they want, so their rights are not taken away but the government has no reason to encourage it. Unless Pro would like to explain how a sudden increase in family members getting married benefits society. 2. Monogamy Pro does not take it at face value that Monogamy has value in our society. Monogamy is about love and commitment. Does Pro think this should not be valued? Does Pro feel society would benefit from married couples being denied a divorce after one of the spouse cheats on the other? Does Pro encourage cheating in relationships? Does Pro not value relationships? Please explain. 3. Polygamy Pro states that many polygamous societies have functioned successfully in the past. Indeed they have. Pros source references cultures where men had many wives like they did back in the days of the King. These societies may have functioned successfully, but is this the lifestyle Pro is advocating for? While it may seem attractive to me as a male, I think it is clearly beneficial for our society to encourage that everyone have a partner who is devoted to them and that they are not simply 1 out of 5 “wives” serving their spouse. 4. Gender restrictions Irrelevant to this debate 5. Separation Pro gives two points here that contradict themselves. He asserts that the benefits of discouraging separation are reason to expand marriage to all who wish for a legal union, but then shows how it “violates individual rights” and has no effect. If it has no effect then why would Pro want it expanded to all? He has essentially argued both for and against himself so I will just extend my argument here and hope he presents a valid response. Conclusion The premise that Pro bases his argument on is false. Marriage does not take away anyone’s rights and are in no way unfair. Pro has also failed to show why my social value argument is not a reason to recognize marriage as a legal concept, and certainly does not shown how his legal union’s concept is beneficial to society. 1 more round to go, back to you Pro