That only financially capable men be allowed to marry

Well, once again I've waited until the last minute to do this debate so I only have about an hour to submit my response. Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited his past round and hasn't been online in awhile; I hope he can make it back for the final rebuttal. In any case, I'll provide a quick response to Pro, a summary of my position, and I'll wrap up all of my arguments in the final round. Good luck, Pro. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pro's Arguments: - Love is not the only thing necessary to sustain a marriage - Money makes men better providers - After a man marries a woman, he becomes the primary bread winner, the head of the household, etc. - If you don't have money, you can't impress your bride's parents - If a woman wants what's best for her children, she should marry a man with money - Finally, love can't withstand money; money wins First off, while I don't entirely disagree with my opponent's first premise (I realize that you need more than love to make a marriage work... such as trust, respect and common interests), I don't think that you need money to make marriage work. Yes, you need money to sustain your life and to afford food, shelter and clothing amongst other necessities and luxuries, but as far as the marriage relationship itself, you only need money to make that work if the marriage is based on wealth alone. Additionally, I am dismayed by my opponent's clear display of blatant sexism and prescriptive stereotyping. Both the resolution and his arguments assume that the man's duty and in fact role is to act as the family's provider. My arguments will negate this falsity. Moreover, he assumes that marriage is based on wealth and possessions rather than the other typical reasons people choose to marry, including to solidify a meaningful relationship by making it legal, to achieve a social norm, for emotional comfort and stability, or for spiritual and religious reasons. Con's Arguments: 1. First and foremost, it should be up to the individual to decide if and when they are ready to marry. In our society, we typically expect an individual to be at least 18 years of age for legal reasons (that is when one becomes a legal adult, and is considered eligible to make legal decisions for themselves). For the government or any other entity to dictate when people make that personal choice would be wrong. That is not the role of the government. We can assume that the resolution is referring to the government by mentioning the word "allow." 2. The idea that men become the head of the household and the bread winners of a family is an out-dated and sexist ideology supported by my opponent's completely biased and unprofessional Muslim link. The government is secular; we do not rely on religious laws or ideology to dictate our laws. Similarly, whether the bride's parents approve of the groom or not is irrelevant. That is a personal issue amongst particular families and not something the government should regulate or be involved in. 3. Many times young people choose to get married before their career is stable or before they have become extremely successful or wealthy. Considering most people have to "work their way up" meaning they don't start out making a lot of money until later on in their lives, that would mean that Pro expects older men to marry. This can have several societal repercussions. For one thing, women typically want to have children before they reach a certain age, and if older men only marry younger women, it implies that a woman has to settle for an older man. This can cause issues such as a lack of attraction or compatibility. Conclusion: I think I've made most of my case for now. I will send the debate back over to Pro and allow him to make a rebuttal before wrapping up my final argument. Thanks, Pro, and again good luck to ya.