No Marriage

~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///1[ab]. Committed coupling is a societal and special benefit, and the state has an obligation to encourage such behavior. /// Does the state really have an obligation to reward those that have strong emotional ties? This may just be my libertarian bias showing, but I think that the government should stay out of the personal lives of its citizens unless those personal lives are directly and adversely affecting the lives of other individuals. You say that the legal recognition of a marriage represents a certain level of commitment, but is the level of commitment really affected all that much by being married? I would say that it is not. Around 50% of legally recognized marriages end in divorce [6]. A legal contract that grants special privileges is not a requirement for a committed relationship and therefore does not affect how a child will be raised. There are families where only one parent is around the child for any specific amount of time, there are some families where a married couple does not spend significant time around their children, there are unmarried couples that raise children together, and unmarried, single parents that raise fine children. A legal contract that benefits a couple financially is not needed to enhance this development. Could you give evidence that supports the idea that married couples are more likely to be committed to other tasks? I can can accept the premise that the commitment that comes with relationships can increase the likelihood of commitment to other tasks, but what affect does the actual contract have? Remember that ~50% of legally recognized marriages end with divorce. ~ ///2. Retaining and expanding state-sanctioned marriages and civil unions helps legitimize minority sexual orientations. /// I will indirectly address this contention with one of my defenses. Suffice to say, this debate's focus was intended to be about the aspects of marriage that are blatantly, at least in my opinion, wrong. These wrong benefits are mainly those that are explicitly financial in nature. ~~~~~~ Defenses ~~~~~~ ///On Contention 1: [1, 3? )]/// How is it equitable that since you are in love with a person and decided to marry them you therefore get benefits not afforded to those who remain unmarried? Currently a person that gets health insurance through their employer can usually get their spouse covered under the same plan even though someone with the same job could not do the same for someone close to them. Here is an example taken and tweaked slightly from my source [1]: On Social Security, you can read the context is spousal recipients of Social Security benefits. "Family Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits. Family #1: Married husband and wife, both are biological parents of the child >Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits >Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits Family #2: Unmarried couple, deceased worker was the biological parent or adoptive of the child >Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits >Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits Family #3: Unmarried couple, deceased worker was not the biological parent nor able to adopt child through second-parent adoption >Not Eligible for Surviving Child Benefits >Not Eligible for Surviving Parent Benefits" I don't know where my opponent's criticism of the part of my contention on immigration is coming from. I am unaware as to whether or not using marriage as simply a means to legally enter America is punishable as a crime, but I never even stated that the practice has the potential for abuse, though I now see that it really does. This supposed punishment for its abuse does not change the fact that marriage is indeed a fast-lane into America for immigrants that allows them to ignore many current regulations. ~ ///On Contention 2: [1, 2)]/// I do not know what you mean when you say that I am trying to define the financial benefits out of the resolution, these financial benefits are the main reason that I oppose the current legal sanctioning of marriage. They are in fact a central part of the debate. My argument is not that marriage altogether should be abolished, the full resolution given in round one states this. In fact I never denied that these financial benefit couples. They absolutely do and that is why I oppose them, because they shouldn't exist. Most competent individuals do not need assistance from and government to thrive. Part 2. ) of this rebuttal is basically just a restatement of Con's Contention 1. ). I believe that I have effectively refuted this contention for the time being and do not need to address this portion of her rebuttal in any in-depth way. ~ ///My opponent offers a sort of conclusion in which he essentially introduces a very vague plan, which is to introduce what amounts to a marriage. If marriage is to be abolished, then it would require my opponent to be entirely contradictory to advocate for "some form of legal contract that grants most of the civil benefits granted by marriage to a couple. "/// I am not advocating complete abolition of marriage, I am advocating the abolition of marriage "as it is in the United States of America. " This includes unfair financial benefits, my proposed solution to this issue is well within the premise of my position and is not contradictory at all. I should also clarify that with the phrase "a couple" I am referring to any consenting couple, or even group. ~ ///Furthermore, marriage is not even close to comparable to vegan-ism or nudism in that one is not contractually, legally, or even emotionally responsible to another human being. .. /// It was not my intent to compare marriage to vegan-ism or nudism. They were merely examples of other, voluntary lifestyle choices, being that a voluntary lifestyle choice is one of my proposed alternatives to marriage. ~ I await my opponent's response and commend her for very well thought out arguments and rebuttals. [6] . http://www.divorcerate.org...