The USFG should increase marriage promotions services for persons in the U.S

-- Introduction -- Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Before we go any further, I'd like to request the sources my opponent offered, considering legitimate resources are a part of the judging process. It'd also be nice to fact check. That said, thanks again and good luck! -- Rebuttal -- 1) Pro's first argument is that since married people receive less welfare benefits, this encourages married women to seek divorce or have children out of wedlock. A couple of responses: First, even if women seek a legal divorce from their spouse, it doesn't mean that they actually have to split up. The husband could continue living at the same house for all the government knows. In other words, legal marriage is nothing but a relationship with a certificate. Relationships can and do exist with the same experiences as married couples without the actual legal marriage. For instance, gay couples in long-term partnerships are not considered legally married though still enjoy the same relationship experiences as married heterosexuals. Second, if the USFG increases incentives for marriage as offered by the resolution, it would have the opposite effect -- people seeking legal marriages for the sake of reaping monetary rewards, instead of for spiritual, emotional or familial purposes. In other words, a certificate doesn't legitimize a relationship any way you look at it. You can live a married lifestyle without being legally married, or you can not lead a typical married lifestyle even with a certificate. 2) Pro begins this point by saying that the collapse of marriage is the most significant problem in America. I negate! I highly doubt most people would consider this issue greater than those like poverty, the economy, education, taxation, corruption, health care, obesity, rape, sexism, civil rights (gay marriage), etc. Nevertheless, Pro also insists that the decline of marriage is a major cause of poverty, welfare dependence, failure in school, abusing drugs, committing crimes, becoming pregnant as teens, etc. However, this is a major distortion of the actual statistic. While it may be true that children with single parents experience these things at a higher rate, it is completely inaccurate to say that these things occur BECAUSE of being a product of divorced parents. Indeed the two are related; however, you must look at it in context. I'm willing to bet (when Pro provides sources) that these things also occur at a much higher rate in urban, low-income areas. Single parents also probably exist more frequently in these areas. However the divorce rate is currently at an alarming rate of nearly 50% [1]. Still, children who live in affluent neighborhoods experience the aforementioned negative impacts (failure in school, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, etc.) at much lower rates despite having divorced parents as well. In other words, divorced parents isn't the reason for those negative things even if those with divorced parents tend to experience them at a higher rate. My point is there are other factors contributing to that statistic. 3) The same analysis applies to Pro's idea that divorced parents leads to a life of crime. On the contrary, most criminals come from low-income lifestyles where the divorce rate is significantly higher. However rich children with divorced parents do not typically engage in said crime. In other words, it's not the divorced parents that lead to these behaviors, and Pro hasn't given us any sources or reason to believe otherwise. 4) Pro insists there are social and private benefits of marriage. Regarding private benefits, once again couples can still enjoy fulfilling relationships without being married (see: long-term gay partnerships). Second, what are the social benefits? If legalized marriage isn't necessary to experience the same thing as long-term couples, then it's absurd to say marriage is necessary to give society certain benefits. First Pro should detail what "benefits" she is speaking of, and I will explain why marriage is not necessary to achieve the same or similar results. -- Arguments -- 1) Marriage should not be a legal institution in the first place. It should have only cultural and/or spiritual significance. For one thing, involving the government in marriage creates all types of dilemmas such as the gay marriage issue with people on all sides feeling different ways. On one hand it's tyrannical to force people to accept a marriage; on the other it's a civil rights violation to restrict someone from certain federal benefits based on their sexuality. If marriage were not a legal institution, conservatives need not personally recognize another's union, but nobody would be unjustly discriminated against and have it be legally acceptable either. This is an unnecessary divisive wedge issue meant only to distract from real issues at hand. Plus, even if Pro proves that being in committed, long-term relationships is both healthy for the individual and positively contributes to society, we once again do not need a legal "marriage" to achieve these same results. 2) Additionally, if people are only getting married for financial benefits, it degrades the entire institution and what it represents. Not to mention it encourages choosing a potentially fatal partner due to eagerness of reaping financial rewards. For instance, if marriage is beneficial insofar as kids with two live-in parents fare better, and I marry someone right away to get the monetary perks, then chances are I might choose someone on a whim I later find too difficult to maintain a relationship with. The result is that my marriage disintegrates and the entire purpose of encouraging my marriage in the first place becomes obsolete. In other words, marriage is a commitment that takes a lot of work. If people are thrust into marriage for the wrong reasons (financial incentives), it'll only be harder for them to be happy and may make their marriage impossible in the end anyway. 3) Young people will want to marry sooner rather than later, and grow to resent this choice as it can inhibit their personal growth and development. It will also increase the likelihood of divorce later, which is both emotionally painful and expensive. 4) It's simply not fair to give people certain benefits (like economic incentives such as tax breaks) on the basis of their relationship status. Why should those who choose to be single, or those not fortunate enough to be in relationships get the short end of the proverbial stick because they are not legally bound to another? This discriminates against many people completely unnecessarily and unfairly. 5) Plenty of other things are good for the individual and society, such as eating healthy. This could lead to a slippery slope where the same logic is extended to others; for instance the government giving incentives to eat healthier by rewarding the physically fit. Once again this creates all kinds of problems regarding the role of government in our lives, the government controlling other people's money to get the populace to do what it wants, discriminating against those who say have health problems, etc. Once again this is easily avoided by the government keeping it's nose out of people's personal lives, and attempting to gain more authority and control over others by manipulating them by appealing to greed. It's immoral. That's all for now! Thanks again, Pro, and good luck. [1] http://www.divorcestatistics.org...