The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
JBlake
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Married couples with children should not have to pay income tax

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,751 times Debate No: 8463
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (51)
Votes (5)

 

sadolite

Pro

Married couples with children should not have to pay income tax because they are supporting and providing for another person in addition to them selves. This would help prevent and reduce the use of govt services. Single people with no children should pay the lions share of income tax. They have to provide for no one other than them selves. This would also encourage and promote the concept of marriage and the family unit. This is an opening statement. I will wait for my opponents rebuttal to make any specific arguments for this idea based on my opponents response.
JBlake

Con

I would like to thank Sadolite for posting this interesting topic. Although the attempt is misguided, I am glad that people are able to think for themselves and come up with new and unique ways to fix problems that they see in the world.

Since Pro failed to define the limits of the length of complete tax exemption, I will assume that he means to stop the exemption when all children are 18 years of age. I hope he will correct me in the second round if this is not what he had in mind.

Pro's burden in this debate is to show that the proposed tax reform would have an overall positive affect on the U.S. My burden is to show that it would have an overall negative or neutral affect.

I stand in opposition to the resolution, that married couples with children should not have to pay income taxes.

To change the tax system in this manner would be devastating to U.S. interests. Below I will outline several, though not all, of these reasons. I reserve the right to offer new arguments in future rounds.

=========

1. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS
The system proposed by Pro would almost certainly bankrupt the federal government. The most recent numbers shows that currently 46% of households have children living at home under the age of 18 (http://www.usatoday.com...). It does not take much further explanation to show how having nearly half the population pay no taxes would immediately bankrupt the government.

2. WELFARE AND SOCIAL SPENDING
Pro suggested that government spending on social services would be prevented or reduced. The minuscule amount that social spending would be reduced under such a tax system would be far outweighed by the huge loss of revenue for the federal government. Welfare and other such social services are intended for use by the poor. Exempting poor households with children from taxes would not help them enough that they would no longer be in need of government assistance. Their jobs would not pay them more money, for one. The taxes among the poor is already low enough, that complete exemption would not even return that much money to their bank accounts. Additionally, the increased number of children that would likely result would actually make people more reliant on government services.

3. OVERPOPULATION
It is easy to see how the proposed tax system would give people incentives to have more children. If getting married and producing offspring means exemption from taxes, our population would begin to soar. This would have negative consequences for several reasons:
a) Eventually this could lead to higher rates of unemployment (who is going to employ all the new people?).
b) Poorer families would be especially likely to produce more children for a longer duration of their life. With more mouths to feed, these families are likely to need more government assistance. However, such assistance would not be forthcoming because the government's revenue would be significantly reduced due to nearly half the population not paying taxes.

4. PROMOTE MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY UNIT
Pro may be correct in his assertion that the proposed tax reforms would encourage marriage and the family unit. However, this may be a negative attribute. With such obvious benefits to being married and having children, of course people would want to be married and have children. Unfortunately, many couple will have children before they are ready. Other couples would get married only for the benefits, leading to loveless marriages. Both of these would have negative consequences for marriage, government, and American culture.

======

CONCLUSION
Because the proposed tax system would lead to so many negative consequences including but not limited to:
a) bankrupting the government; and
b) population explosion beyond sustainability; and
c) cause additional need for government assistance; and
d) promote loveless marriages and children before young parents are mature enough:
the resolution (Married couples with children should not have to pay income tax) is negated.
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

"Since Pro failed to define the limits of the length of complete tax exemption, I will assume that he means to stop the exemption when all children are 18 years of age. I hope he will correct me in the second round if this is not what he had in mind."

Yes until the age of 18. No tax break even if they still live at home. Although I would extend it for people with disabled children that will never be able to function on their own.

"Pro's burden in this debate is to show that the proposed tax reform would have an overall positive affect on the U.S"

Taking money away from Govt and putting it into the hands of the consumer not only increases overall revenue intake but creates private sector jobs. Private sector jobs are what generate tax revenue. Gov't work projects do not generate new tax revenue. Gov't funded jobs are an administrative cost of doing business for the private sector. Yes people work and get paid but the money that is used to pay a gov't worker is taken from the private sector to begin with to not only pay the worker but fund the always over budget and always wasteful project too. My opponent can ask me to give an example of Gov't waste, but can we all be intellectually honest and agree that gov't wastes money on just about everything it does.

"To change the tax system in this manner would be devastating to U.S. interests"

Aren't the people of the country the most important intrest to a country? It would be devisting to discretionary pork barrel spending by gov't for sure and that would be a good thing.

" The most recent numbers shows that currently 46% of households have children living at home under the age of 18"

The chart in this link http://www.taxfoundation.org... shows that the vast majority of poor people are single or unmarried with a dependent child. If you look at the chart it also shows that people who earn between 20 and 40 thousand dollars a year are virtually equal in number percentage wise as far as tax burden goes with respect to married with children or single/ single head of household. This tax bracket represents the vast majority of people in this country If we took all the money that is being taken from married people with children by the Govt and let them spend it the way the see fit, this would cause a massive surge and growth in the economy like nothing has ever been seen. This would generate so many new private sector jobs there wouldn't be enough people to fill them. You could name your own price as far as what you would be paid for the work you do. People would have so much extra money to spend and save they would be more able to save and invest for retirement and leave their children with an inheritance rather than a huge gov't debt that can never be paid. Being poor would be your own fault. The Gov't would be able to butcher the amount of money spent on welfare services. That combined with more poor single people not being poor anymore would increase revenues. My opponents assertion that if married people quit paying income tax the gov't would lose all of it's revenue is a mi optic point of view in the context of this debate. History has proven time and time again that when people are allowed to keep their money they don't need gov't.

3. OVERPOPULATION

The US is nowhere near being overpopulated it could support many more people. You need at the very minimum of 2 new people in order to take care of and provide for the retired people. Population must grow in order to have a healthy society. One can cry about the environment all they want and try and stop population growth but we can already see the negative effects of this in countries like China where they have a one child per family rule. It is bad in every way for the human race.

"a) Eventually this could lead to higher rates of unemployment (who is going to employ all the new people?)."

The private sector will employee all these new people as job growth will come from new spending and investing from all the additional money that will be put back into the hands of the people and not the gov't.

"b) Poorer families would be especially likely to produce more children for a longer duration of their life."

This is the effect of the current tax code. The govt has one rule for govt assistance that every poor person must meet in order to receive continued govt assistance: You must remain poor! Right now a person who is savvy enough to play the system can keep a job just under poverty limit and collect up to 30 thousand dollars additional each year in benefits from the govt without lifting a finger. For instance: SCHIP Free medical care! I pay $600 a month Free dental care I can't afford it. Free food Food stamps up to $300 a month. I have to buy my food. Free breakfast and lunch at school. Why frickin work! And lets not forget all the Govt grants that are out there.

4. PROMOTE MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY UNIT
"Pro may be correct in his assertion that the proposed tax reforms would encourage marriage and the family unit."

Yes it most certainly would and it would also be a big disincentive for single motherhood which are tax system promotes and encourages today.

"Other couples would get married only for the benefits, leading to loveless marriages. Both of these would have negative consequences for marriage, government, and American culture."

Under our current tax system women could have babies just to collect benefits, . As far as people getting married just for the benefits, why is that bad? People get married for all kinds of reasons now. Not just because they love each other.

The Idea that people will just willy nilly have children or get married based on this is preposterous. Both people must agree to have a child or get married. An unmarried women can become pregnant and not tell the man just to receive benefits. It is highly unlikely in most cases that a man or a women could convince another man or woman to marry him or her and have children just to take advantage of a tax break.

Conclusion:

This idea would not bankrupt the country it would make the economy explode and increase overall revenue to the govt while at the same time reducing the number of people receiving benefits.

Population growth is necessary in order to have a healthy society and to care for the elderly and retired in a meaningful and compassionate way. One must just accept that the earth can and will provide for the population as it grows. It is the environmentalist extremist that tries to keep the earth from charging that will bankrupt this country.

This idea will not promote anymore loveless marriages that already take place now.

All the advantages are clear to this idea. It would help this country out of this recession and put money back into the hands of the people while at the same time reduce or completely eliminate unemployment and provide high paying jobs to the poor to bring them out of poverty. Create a positive environment for investment and saving for retirement to pass on to future generations.
JBlake

Con

Thanks again to Pro for his interest in offering solutions to problems he sees in American government and culture. Although I disagree with them, I am glad that there are people offering creative solutions.

I will briefly outline Pro's position, which is largely a refutation of my argument, then defend my position.

=======

Pro's second round of debate is wanting in factual accuracy and in clear support for his thesis. I urge him to develop a case of his own in future rounds rather than contenting himself with merely rebutting my points. If he is to win this debate he will need to come up with an argument of his own.

-------

Pro states that The proposed reform would result in an overall increase in (government?) "revenue intake' and create more private sector jobs. He does not specify why this will be the case, but we can assume it is from an increase in market activity due to more money in the pockets of married couples with children. It will also help trim the unnecessary and "wasteful" aspects of government spending. The loss of revenue would be devastating to "pork barrel spending," which is a good thing.
Here we can see a contradiction in Pro's position. First he asserts that the government will ultimately benefit from the proposed reform with an increase in revenue intake, then he seems to be agreeing that the government will receive less income. Well which is it, Pro? You can't have it both ways.

If he concedes that the federal government would be devastated by the loss of revenue, then he needs to propose an alternative. Where will the federal government get the money to pay for military defense, education, police and fire-fighting, infrastructure upkeep, or any of the other important services it provides for its constituency?

If he believes that ultimately the government would receive an increase in revenue then he will have to provide evidence to support the claim. Merely stating "History has proven time and time again that when people are allowed to keep their money they don't need gov't" does not exempt you from the necessity of proving your claims with evidence.

I await the next round for clarification. Again, you can't have it both ways, Pro.

<------>

I will address each of the major points he makes on their own. To do this I will have to ignore the fact that Pro consistently contradicts himself on whether the government will benefit financially or be substantially cut. I hope the audience will not overlook this fact merely because I am refuting his points anyway.

------

Pro concedes that married couples with children make up a significant proportion of tax revenue, but believes that exempting them from taxes would "cause a massive surge and growth in the economy" resulting in the creation of new private sector jobs.

What he is advocating, then, is replacing government jobs with private-sector ones. People currently employed by the government will need to seek employment in the private sector. On top of this massive migration of employment, there will be no funding and no labor to perform the absolutely necessary tasks that the government currently performs. These include, but are not limited to: military personnel, teachers and professors of public education, construction workers on public infrastructure upkeep (roads, bridges, schools, &ct.), police officers, firefighters, and the many others.

-------

Population growth is necessary for a healthy society, Pro asserts. The rise in population that may result would be covered (in terms of employment) by new private sector jobs. He suggests that we ignore the many environmental problems associated with high population growth.

At some point, the environment stops being able to support a population. Eventually there is no more available, arable land to sustain further growth. Additionally, as some point a region is no longer able to sustain healthy employment rates. Employment is not infinite. This will result in an increase in poverty. Sometimes people will be forced to migrate to a region where there is food or employment. Of course, this will put a strain on that region as well and affect its ability to support further growth. In short, overpopulation is indeed a serious concern that should not be brushed aside, as Pro seems apt to do.

---------

Pro claims that the current tax structure encourages poor people to remain poor in order to collect benefits. This assertion is simply incorrect. Why would anyone want to remain in a bad situation merely because the federal government has programs to give them food and shelter so that they do not starve? If Pro were ever subjected to such conditions, or met anyone who was, he would quickly come to the conclusion that this is not the case. Poor people are not poor because they want handouts, they are poor because of a lack of opportunities in both education and employment.

Removing their welfare services would not create jobs and education for them. Without employment or government support they would be forced to find other means of obtaining shelter and sustenance. This would likely result in an increased crime rate, as they run out of legal solutions to their lack of food.

-------

Pro's final point is that people getting married just for the benefits is not a negative attribute. I beg to differ. American culture would take a massive hit by a large increase in unhealthy relationships. Obviously, most people will be unhappy in such loveless relationships. Some couples will be married and have children before they are ready, causing a strain on their finances. Others will remain married to someone with whom they do not get along, or otherwise dislike, causing a decrease in their quality of life.

With the proposed reform, these would become widespread. We are not talking about some minor tax cutting, we are talking about complete tax exemption. Few people would turn down the opportunity for such personal gain.
Debate Round No. 2
sadolite

Pro

sadolite forfeited this round.
JBlake

Con

I'm sure Sadolite, a respected member of Debate.org had a valid reason for missing the third round of debate. I ask the audience to forgive him for this round. Since most debates I participate in are three rounds, missing this one in no way limits either of our arguments.

My arguments extend.
Debate Round No. 3
sadolite

Pro

Sorry about missing the last round to all of the readers. I was preoccupied with a home improvement project. Building a closet.
Now on to the debate:

"If he is to win this debate he will need to come up with an argument of his own."

I will make no rebuttals to anything my opponent said in the last round except to two points. Point 1 Con has got me on this point: I did contradict myself by saying the gov't would lose revenue and then state that it would gain revenue. The gov't being forced to cut spending on welfare is a pipe dream of mine.

Point two: People getting married for the tax benefit will lead to loveless marriages. This link http://www.flowinglove.com... says the top 2 reasons people get married today is "sexual gratification and money". The vast majority of marriages among young people are based on initial infatuation mistaken for love. I am a prime example of that, having been divorced once. I could have sworn I was in love but once the honeymoon was over, reality set in and the day to day life with this person and all of the things we disagreed on that one can only find out after being married. Loveless marriages take place all the time right now. Women marry rich men for their money and vis versa. Love is not an absolute prerequisite for marriage as Con suggests. And I will reiterate that marriage is a two way street. Both parties must agree to get married. They both must be willing to live together and have children together. I don't know about you but there is no tax break in the world that would be big enough to make me want to have a child with another person just for the tax break. Cons position on this point is purely personal speculation based on what he perceives human beings would do based on his own personal logic with regard to marriage and relationships and not backed by any source.

The tax code as it stands now discourages single poor heads of households from remarrying. When a single parent gets married they in most cases increases their combined income to not make them eligible for benefits anymore and then moves them into a taxable tax bracket and in many cases give them less than what they had before. If the combined income was not taxable it would encourage marriage and give the new couple more money to spend and a better chance of success and the added virtue of not being a ward of the state and building self reliance and self esteem.

Single heads of households and single people make up the majority of poor people in this country and the largest receivers of welfare benefits. married couples and married couples with children make up the least amount. Simple logic dictates that one should promote and reward the later to reduce the poverty level.

Lets put poverty in the US in perspective shall we. The census bureau says there are 37 million people living in poverty in the US. This link absolutely blew my mind. http://www.heritage.org...
43% of poor people own their own home. The average home for a poor person in this country is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are over�crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher. This does not sound anything like poverty to me. More than half of these "poor"people should be paying taxes. They have everything I have and some have more.

Now lets look at taxes paid by demographic: The top ten percent of all wage earners pay 70% of all income tax. That is people earning $108,000 or more per year. http://www.ntu.org...
Referring back to this link http://www.taxfoundation.org... shows that single people and married people are virtually the same with respect to tax burden in the 20 to 40 thousand dollar range, which by the way is about or just below the average income for the nation. If married couples were not burdened by income tax in the bottom 90% of tax payers it would have little or no effect on revenue intake for the govt. I fit into that 90% bracket and paid nearly 10,000 in taxes. That 10,000 plus all the other people that pay that amount would spend that money and reinvest it into the economy creating high paying tax paying jobs for single people and heads of households to pay taxes on, thus generating more revenue over all. Taxing people does not promote growth it never has and never will. Not taxing married couples in the bottom 90% of wage earners would be a positive for this country would create jobs stimulate the economy and promote marriage and the family unit. I must concede that we can't do this for the nations top ten percent of tax payers because they pay 70% of all income tax but they only represent less than 5% of the population.

Other positives with not taxing married couples is that they will be able to save more for retirement and build more wealth during the time they have children so when the kids do move out they will have higher taxable incomes thus increasing revenue to the govt even more than they would otherwise. If you combine pre marriage single people with post child married people, not taxing married people with children is completely and totally feasible and would be better for the country as a whole. And one should also take into account just how "poor" the poor in this country really are and this seems like a no brainer to me. There will be plenty of revenue for the govt to squander, burn and waste.
JBlake

Con

Pro has altered his resolution somewhat. I ask the readers to forgive him this faux paus because any good reformer is willing to admit a flaw in his proposal and tweak it enough to make it work. Pro has changed his position to not extend his proposed right to the wealthy five percent (people making more than $108,000 per year.

I will break his argument up into titled sections, as per usual.

========

GOVERNMENT REVENUE
Pro claims that by not extending his proposed tax exemption to the wealthy 5% then the government would not collapse because they pay 70% of tax revenue. As if the wealthy of our nation were not already bothered by the fact that they pay the majority of government revenue, under the proposal they will add to their list of grievances the fact that they are the only people paying taxes.

The loss of such a huge portion of government revenue (likely nearing 30%), especially with the growing national debt, will be devastating. If it does not completely bankrupt our nation, it will at the very lest severely limit our ability to perform necessary government functions. The resulting cuts in funding will cripple most programs. The defense budget may survive, but would be significantly reduced. Education, already struggling, would be even more strained (if not crippled); roads and bridges, already strained and below quality standards, would wait even longer for repairs; most social programs (welfare, medicare, social security, &ct) would be completely cut.

Pro claims that the money returning to the hands of the people will result in an increase in revenue for the government. Let us examine this claim using the 10,000 cited by him:
Instead of receiving 10,000 in taxes from Sadolite, the government instead receives the sales tax (most states around 6% - 8%) from the goods and services he spends it on. By most math formulas, 8% of 10,000 ($800) is less than 10,000 - not more. Even an increase in sales tax would result in a lower total tax revenue for the government. That is assuming that most or all people will reinvest their money in the economy rather than saving some or most of it.

No matter how you look at it, the proposed reform will result in a significant cut in government revenue. It follows that a cut in government revenue results in a cut in services provided.

--------

PROMOTES UNHEALTHY MARRIAGES and DAMAGES CULTURE
First, Pro suggests that such marriages already exist. However, the proposed reform would encourage in increase in the number of these unhealthy marriages. As Pro himself mentions, complete tax exemption could well seem quite worth it ($10,000 for Pro himself, and more for others).

(note) Pro never challenged my assertion that an increase in unhealthy marriages results in negative consequences to American culture. He only said that such marriages already exist.

Pro shows that the poor in America are better off than the poor elsewhere. This is true, except for the most poverty-stricken, of course. Relative deprivation theory (sociology) suggests that this is mostly irrelevant. The poor here compare themselves to the middle- and upper-classes in America, not their poor counterpart elsewhere in the world. As a result, they still feel as though they are deprived (whether or not they are deprived is another matter, and irrelevant to the point).

--------

OTHER
Pro claims that married couples will have the added benefit of having more money to save for retirement. This is another contradiction and hole in his argument. He earlier claimed that the government will actually have greater incoming revenue because people will have more money to reinvest in the economy. Now he is saying that they will use that money to save for retirement and build more wealth for themselves.

========

CONCLUSION
Pro has not met his burden. In order to win this debate he needed to show that his proposed tax reform would have an overall positive effect on the U.S.
Fiscal consequences are the most important consideration in any tax reform. His assertions on this point were inconsistent and lacking in relevant data.
Cultural consequences are also a relevant and important consideration. His statements were far from sweeping. Indeed, it seems as though he did not consider this point in his initial proposal.

Since Pro failed to meet his burden, I urge the readers to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
The bottom line is this: You can't deal with all the possible forms of marriage on a case by case basis. If we as a society are going to redefine marriage The law must "first" Address all possibilities before it writes any new law. Your logic on this issue is flawed. You already approve of polygamy which of course will come up and there is nothing in any law that addresses this future challenge. Are we going to redefine marriage on a regular bases if someone can win in a 3 or 4 panel federal court? That is what is being done now and that is what will be done in all future cases. A precident has been set. The simplest of logic dictates this. But like I said logic and common sence are light years from the law.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
I knew you would not acknowledge the procreation issue but instead redirect to not have to deal with it. This is exactly how a courtroom works. And your tactic will be exactly what lawyers will use. Redirect to take attention away from the obvious. Homosexuals can not procreate, ALL homosexuals" not some not a few ALL. But you think it is logical to make a same sex marriage equal in every way even though "ALL" homosexual marriages will never produce offspring. You are unwittingly proving my point by offering up the many many arguments that will be made by lawyers to legalize all forms of marriage. Go ahead and think of some thing else to justify same sex marriage. It will most certainly be used by all advocates of other forms of marriage. Whats good argument for same sex marriages is good argument for the next form of marriage.
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Would your logic also prohibit benefits to heterosexual couples unable to produce (sterile, or too old)?

The goal is not to increase our population. The goal should be to keep a steady population with perhaps a very small growth rate.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
EEEH logic dictates that same sex mariges can never procreate therefore they should not be afforded the same rights as heterosexual marriages. Yet you think this illogical. That is all.
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Wow. Logic does not belong in the courtroom? Is that a joke?

It's like arguing with a brick wall.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
"Why must you always equate same-sex marriage with the worst" Again with the equating same sex marriage with something else. I am talking about legal challenges that will take place after the fact. That is all I have ever been talking about and still continue to talk about.

As far as roommates marrying each other "all the time" And I am criticized about reaching to far without sources? come now. Same sex marriage is only allowed in just a few states and are not eligible for any federal recognition under tax law.

And you concede the "exclusion" which will most definitely be challenged and overturned because they are both consenting adults and their civil rights are being violated. If same sex couples can get marriage benefits why can't a mother and her son get marriage benefits. You think logic and common sence have a place in a court room. I can assure you that logic and the law are light years apart. 20 years ago same sex marriage was considered crazy and unthinkable and defied common sence. Now it is............................
Posted by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
I don't know where to begin...

Wording: As I mentioned, redifine marriage (or civil unions) as between two consenting adults, rather than one man and one woman. If you really need to exclude family members then you could easily add a clause about that.

You claim that roomates can just marry for the benefits. This can, and already does occur, between males and females. What would be the problem with extending it to same-sex? This is not a legitimate concern.

Why must you always equate same-sex marriage with the worst, most diabolical things? Yes, there are good intentions for same-sex marriage. There are good intentions for many things - like charity, cancer research, &ct. that do not pave the way for tyranny and disaster.

What is it about same-sex marriage that hurts heterosexual marriage so much? Please, explain that to me.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Same sex marriage is a road paved with good intentions only to end in disater for the institution of marriage. I don't know who said it but "The road paved with good intentions was paved by all the most tyrannical govt's that ever existed". One should pay more attention and think through their good intensions far more than monitoring what they may do wrong. Good intensions are responsible for more death, destruction and destroyed lives than anything else combined.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
Lets also delve into singles who room together. This would be the greatest thing ever for single people to take advantage of all the benefits of marriage and live their entire lives without ever having to commit to a relationship. Let say two guys claim to be homosexuals. They can marry each other and get all the benefits and just date women for ever without ever having to get married to the women. Adultery isn't illegal, divorce is easy and cheap if uncontested. If ether one does want to marry a women they can just get divorced, no problem. Even better marry someone with kids and get the child tax credit. This is just two of countless issues you will have to deal with in your simple as pie "Consenting adults" And remember there will be no EXCEPT or any other word that can be construed as exclusionary. The lawyers will look for it and use it.
Posted by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
"Marriage to mean between two consenting adults." I already see a flaw in this. What about a brother and sister a father and daughter and so on and so on. They also just want to get married for the benefits. Being in love or having sex are not requirements to get married mind you. Companionship could be used for example. I need to take care of my sick mother on and on and on. You have no idea of the number of angles lawyers will use.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
sadoliteJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Dmorgen 7 years ago
Dmorgen
sadoliteJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sherlockmethod 7 years ago
sherlockmethod
sadoliteJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
sadoliteJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sadolite 7 years ago
sadolite
sadoliteJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70