Marriage should not be a legal concept

This debate is about marriage In the last round I made a comment that Pros anarchist views were not a valid reason to deny society of something that is determined to be beneficial. Con responds by giving even more arguments based on his anarchist views, suggesting that government should not have control to make these types of decisions. Here are some of his last rounds quotes: "Government is a societal representative, by taking using that role to define marriage on society's behalf, they take this right out of the hands of the citizens.” “my claims about individual rights were not concerning this issue, but rather about an individual's right to decide what is a marriage to them, without government deciding on behalf of all society.” “Government should not unilaterally force people to recognize what they do not wish to recognize.” Pro has clearly shown that a major premise in his arguments is the notion that government should not have the power to decide what is good for society. However, this is a democracy. Laws are made by representatives elected by society. If people are unhappy with them they can simply vote them out. The concept that government in a democracy is somehow a separate entity from society, is completely and utterly false. The resolution states that marriage should not be recognized as a legal concept, so this debate is clearly about marriage, not about the government. Yet Pro bases his contentions on the premise that government should not have certain rights. The only reasonable assumption one can make is that when initiating a debate about a legal concept, the arguments should fall within the confines of the governmental system currently in place. To accept Pros arguments to this point, one would have to accept that this debate should not fall within those confines. As much as I would love to debate what the role of government should be, this debate is about marriage. With this in mind, I will continue to show why pros arguments fail according to the principles of our actual government. Rebuttals Since Pro has made many claims of me misinterpreting his arguments I will continue by using his own quotes to support the premise of my rebuttals. Since his points were numbered, this will make it easier for anyone to verify that I am correctly interpreting his argument. In some cases Pro may have made more then one point, so I took the strongest point to stay in line with character limits. 1. “my claims about individual rights were not concerning this issue, but rather about an individual's right to decide what is a marriage to them, without government deciding on behalf of all society” Individuals have always had the right to decide what marriage is to them. What individuals do not have the right to do is decide on their own, what the government should accept as marriage. Issues like this is why we have elections. 2. “government should not sacrifice fairness or individual rights for the greater good of society.” This statement is completely illogical. Fairness and individual rights are not a separate concept to what is most beneficial to society, they are part of it. If a law really did take away our rights, it would not be beneficial to society. 3. “Different organizations, religions, and groups have different ideas about marriage. They should not be forced to agree.” Why does Pro keep asserting that marriage requires everyone to change their opinions? People may agree or disagree with anything they like. If they disagree with the government’s interpretation about marriage then they should not get married by the government. No one is being forced to do anything. There will always be disagreement about what the law should be. Again, this is why we have elections. 4. Irrelevant to this debate. 5. “Being able to obtain this unity with a single legal status change is something that would only be fair if any pair can do it.” This statement is completely false. Every individual has the same exact rights to get married. There is no such thing as being more fair then that. 6. “The role of the government is first to protect individual rights, second to ensure equality, and lastly to do everything it can to benefit the whole within those confines.” This appears to come from Pros made up government concept. In a real government such as ours (in theUS) laws must fall within the confines of theUSconstitution which marriage certainly does. Beyond that the deciding factor is weather it is good for society. Again, rights and equality are part of that decision. “Con does not address my assertion that spending time finding out whether or not they are in a relationship detracts from time and resources that could be spent determining whether the foreigner is someone who should be a citizen.” This is completely made up. Besides it being complete irrelevant, no where in this debate has Pro made any assertion about his argument having anything to do with who should be a citizen. 7a. “It is not fair to this brother and sister to be unable to partake of benefits that others can, which comes partially from their tax money and participation in government.” Once again, this hypothetical brother and sister couple can partake in the same benefits that others can, but instead they decide to be involved with each other. That is their choice. The government can not deny them that, but they have no reason to encourage it. 7b “Government should not have tried to unify their (relationship) conceptions, but rather should have left them to themselves.” Here is the question… why should the government offer marriage or legal unions in the first place? Pro has not even attempted to answer this question throughout the debate. If we wiped out marriage and civil unions completely, why on earth would we offer “legal unions”? I have shown good reason why the government should recognize marriage, Pro has not even tried to show how society benefits from offering legal unions. 7c “If a couple are not functional, forcing them to stay married will not bring stability to them.” If couples were being forced to stay married then there would be no such thing as divorce. But the fact that divorce is unpleasant and generally discouraged in society gives couples an added incentive to try to stay together. Anyone who has ever been in a long term relationship knows that maintaining that relationship requires hard work and sacrifice, but the rewards are often well worth it. People are lazy by nature and need incentive to work hard at anything. That is why many of us have personal trainers for example, sometimes we need that extra push. For many couples, marriage (which is about commitment) is that extra push, which is why it is valued. That “extra push” is entirely their decision. Most importantly (Pros conclusion)… He frequently challenges me to show how legal unions benefit society more than marriage. I have stated repeatedly that benefit to society is secondary to fairness and individual rights, making such a challenge irrelevant. Once again, fairness and rights are part what is beneficial, not separate from it. The fact that Pro acknowledges that he has not shown why his legal union’s concept is most beneficial to society is alone enough to negate the resolution… according to the way our government actually works anyway. Conclusion Pros resolution stated clearly that this debate was about marriage. When initiating a debate about a legal concept one can only assume that the premise falls in accordance with the current active form of government. And even if you agree with his government arguments I remind you that he never supported those contentions, he simply asserted them. In reality however this debate was about his legal union concept vs. marriage according to the principles of democracy. A resolution which he never made a valid case for. Meanwhile I have given good reason that marriage should be recognized as a legal concept.