The Instigator
Korashk
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
alto2osu
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

No Marriage

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
alto2osu
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,969 times Debate No: 11858
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (3)

 

Korashk

Pro

Full Resolution: "Marriage as it is in the United States of America should be Abolished."

Terms clarified:
Marriage - the legal definition
Civil Marriage - a term that I use to illustrate the concept of a type of marriage that does not include financial factors.
Civil benefits - refers to all of the non-financial benefits of marriage except for the immigration fast-lane

~~~~~~~~
Argument
~~~~~~~~

Contention 1:
Marriage violates the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The 14th amendment guarantees all citizens of the United States equal protection under the law [1]. Citizens that are married are granted rights that are not afforded to those that are not married. In fact the number of individual rights granted to those who are married outnumbers those granted to individuals not married by over 1000 [2]. Some specific examples of unjust freedoms gained through marriage is that it allows any non-resident of America to gain an immigration 'fast lane,' or it makes it easier for them to move to this country and they can ignore many traditional immigration regulations. Marriage also grants spousal exemption from estate taxes [3]. I do not believe that a person deserves special treatment simply because they had an emotion that made them want to spend their life with another person [2].

Contention 2:
Most of the civil benefits of marriage can be gained through alternate legal avenues that do not involve marriage.

For instance there are forms that you can fill out on-line that grant another individual your power of attorney [4][5]. I ask that you read the provided link [4] to learn about this concept if you are currently unaware of what it entails. You can also cerate a last will and testament that does many things for you legally, even if those involved are not married.

It is for these reasons that I believe that homosexual marriage should not be legalized and marriage should be demoted to a lifestyle in kind with other lifestyle choices that people make such as vegan-ism or nudism, or there should be some form of legal contract that grants most of the civil benefits granted by marriage to a couple.

I look forward to my opponent's response and hope that this can remain a semantics-free debate.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.hrc.org...
[3] http://www.shusterman.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.expertlaw.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.expertlaw.com...
alto2osu

Con

I would prefer to specify the definition of "marriage" as it is specified under law, rather than assuming that my opponent's and my conception align. Furthermore, both federal and state-by-state definitions exist. For this reason, we should prefer [1]:

The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created.

I do, however, concede that possession of a marriage license will allow citizens to seek state- and federal-provided benefits. While I'm not sure why my opponent felt the need to define "civil benefits," as the taxation benefits are also of primary concern to the debate, I won't argue the matter until it becomes an issue.

Con Advocacy:

1. Committed coupling is a societal and special benefit, and the state has an obligation to encourage such behavior.

While marriage, in and of itself, obviously has little power to solely influence a type of household, the commitment that it represents does. Such commitments should be rewarded by the state, and a marriage license is an easy and documentable way of bestowing benefits on those who perform such a useful task to both their society and the human species. The benefits of committed coupling, assuming that these couples can survive, are as follows:

a. Committed couples provide a safer, healthier environment for their offspring. Because such couples typically have combined incomes, a single household, and have made both a legal and emotional declaration of their loyalty to the relationship, married couples are statistically much more likely to raise healthy, balanced, and socially capable children. Rick Santorum states:

"…there is a wealth of evidence that children living in two-parent homes are better off than those in single-parent families. They are 44 percent less likely to be physically abused, 47 percent less likely to suffer physical neglect, 43 percent less likely to suffer emotional neglect, and 55 percent less likely to suffer some form of child abuse." [2]

As an educator, I can assure you that a vast majority of modern day psychological and educational research points in the same direction: stability is the key to raising a child (stability of affection, of home, of school, etc.), and that stability must begin with a child's home environment. It is, therefore, paramount to the state to create as many healthy households as possible.

b. Couples committed to each other are far more likely to be committed to other tasks. A marriage license is a statement of profound accountability. Such statements are necessary to the thriving of a species, especially one such as our own. Encouraging altruism is critical to the survival of the human race, and the marriage license is one such way of encouraging it. Based on the symbolism of the gesture alone, one could vote Con.

2. Retaining and expanding state-sanctioned marriages and civil unions helps legitimize minority sexual orientations.

It is the state's duty to legitimize all that which falls under the purview of "liberty," a key founding concept in our ideology. Essentially, if my actions do not violate any other citizen's guaranteed rights, then my action is just. Homosexual unions, when put to this test, are clearly just, though a combination of religious fanaticism and homophobia has stopped the freest nation in the world from affirming a homosexual's right to a state-recognized committed relationship. Hence, dissolving all marriage does absolutely nothing to change any of the stigma surrounding these relationships, and does absolutely nothing to maximize equality or equity. There are still a host of services and benefits that will be denied to such committed couples based on the fact that they are of the same sex, and not based on the possession of a marriage license.

However, by requiring the state to, as it should, both locally and federally recognize a committed homosexual couple with a marriage certificate, we do two things. First, we legitimize that sexual preference, as it does not violate the principle of liberty and carries with it the same benefits to society and the human race as does a heterosexual marriage. The government effectively endorses homosexuals as actual citizens of the nation, which is something that the Pro can never hope to achieve. Second, we solve the problem of unfair treatment entirely, rather than having to revamp every piece of US infrastructure that uses a legally binding marriage as part of its decision-making calculus.

Pro Advocacy:

On Contention 1:

1) This assumes that all these benefits are rights, rather than governmental mechanisms to ensure equitable distribution of burden. The purpose of tax breaks, for instance, or any other type of benefit, is to enable coupled living. While there are, perhaps, some benefits of marriage that could be altered to perfect it as a social institution, this alone does not justify abolishing it. The benefits given to married couples are a matter of equity, which is prized highly in every facet of American society.

3) The Pro's example of immigration fast tracks is a misuse of the institution, and is punished as a crime, an abuse of the institution. That isn't a freedom at all, considering the spirit of such an allowance, which concerns practicality and a respect for the human tendency to monogamously pair off. We don't have the right to drag anyone into our borders that we please—the marriage is supposed to be legitimate, a product of love, and not a matter of citizenship. This, as I mentioned previously, is something that we could improve enforcement on, but is not a reason to abolish the entire institution of marriage.

On Contention 2:

1) While it is true that many of these "civil benefits" are accessible to couples regardless of marital status, my opponent doesn't speak at all regarding the existing financial infrastructure that surrounds married couples. He simply tries to define these benefits out of the resolution. Mind you, if we were to abolish state-sanctioned marital unions, the tax and financial benefits would dissolve, as well, but the Con advocacy speaks directly to why these benefits necessarily help human beings not only subsist, but thrive.

2) Though the state of matrimony has been pockmarked by some unfortunate statistics and celebrity couple disasters, the reason why so many of these "civil benefits" are easier to obtain with a marriage license is because the purpose of said license is to display some sort of monogamous, stable commitment. There is, as my case points out, a positive link between nuclear family stability and this sort of commitment, so the state should be attempting to maximize the benefit to citizens coming out of monogamous homes by offering incentives to couples who choose manifest this lifestyle.

On the Conclusion:

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."

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. Unlike a sexual orientation that will result in the pairing of individuals who will share some portion of their entire lives with another, me choosing to not ingest meat or dairy products will most likely not lead directly to a nuclear family, a shared household, or any number of different life changes that a partnering would result in.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.heritage.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Korashk

Pro

I thank my opponent for her response and will begin with my rebuttals before moving on to the defense of my contentions.

~~~~~~~
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...
alto2osu

Con

I thank my opponent for his thorough RD 2 response. In between stuffing boxes, I had a very enjoyable time reviewing his post. :)

Pro Case:

On Contention 1:

1. My opponent misses the point of that entire argument, unfortunately. It isn't the license itself that encourages anything. The benefits arising from such a contract are the state's way of expressing approval for committed behavior. The license is the government's way of rewarding what is supposed to be a lifelong commitment to creating a nuclear family. As my sources and case state, nuclear families with two parents produce statistically more healthy children. Of course, there are exceptions to every statistical proof, but that doesn't inherently devalue my data. The state need only encourage what maximizes societal good.

2. I figured the divorce statistic would come up sooner or later. Not a problem, and here's why: this does nothing unique to convince us that abolishing marriage is any sort of solution. While the concept of marriage is clearly in trouble, that is, as stated before, not a valid reason to scrap marriage all together. If the goal is to encourage more deep-seeded commitment, then abolishing an institution that rewards commitment is probably a bass-akwards way of doing it. While the system of rewards may need to be revamped, or educational opportunities may need to be seized to encourage a respect for the institution of marriage, banning it won't gain any positive good or improve what that divorce rate *really* indicates: that the American people have a distorted view of commitment.

3. The warrant for marriage leading to other commitments is logical, rather than statistical. If we can both agree that relationship-based commitment begets the ability to commit to other tasks (which my opponent concedes to), and marriage is another commitment, then the proof is there. The license, again, is the state encouraging such commitments to flourish.

On Contention 2:

1. This isn't a response to my argument. While my opponent's job is to point out what's wrong with marriage, I have every right to point out what good can come of it. This is simple cost-benefit analysis. Even if my opponent, in the end, can prove that the financial aspects of marriage are unwarranted (which I don't think he can), if the institution's benefits to humanity outweigh in another capacity, you will vote Con based on net benefit. Therefore, please extend the fact that marriage helps recognize minority rights, thereby increasing protection of fundamental rights within the U.S.

Con Case:

On Contention 1:

Unequal benefits

My opponent assumes here that marriage licenses are just impossible to get. If one of these unmarried couples wants these benefits, they simply need to seek a license, and benefits shall ensue. If they are already committed at home, then why not claim one's voucher of recognition from the state? It's like claiming a dependent on taxes. Would my opponent also argue that people should be able to take dependents into account on their 1040's without proving to the state that they exist? The question we should be asking is "why were these unmarried couples unwilling to go to a courthouse on their day off and pick up that license?" One can only receive benefits from the state if one seeks recognition from the state. Now, if you are gay, then you probably can't get this recognition. Remember: I am the only one that can solve for these inequalities between gay and straight couples, as stated in my unrefuted 2nd contention.

Furthermore, extend all that stuff I said about equity and some benefits not being a matter of rights in this context. Do all citizens have the "right" to a dependent tax break if they choose not to have children (since this is a lifestyle choice, as well)? No, because it doesn't work that way. Some benefits are given as a matter of equity. Married couples will, on balance, require more income to survive . The calculus of coupling has been carefully factored into our existing tax system.

Immigration

Actually, application for citizenship is still a necessity, as well as a very rigorous INS process which requires applicants to display some sort of evidence of a pre-existing relationship prior to entering the country. My rebuttal here was to counter immigration practice as a reason to abolish marriage. I was merely asserting that this isn't actually much of a "privilege," and was never intended to be.

On Contention 2:

Financial Benefits

1. The reason I assumed that my opponent was trying to avoid the financial debate is because he defined "civil benefits" specifically as non-financial, and then never mentions tax breaks or the finances of marriage in his case. If that's a misunderstanding, consider it cleared up now. However, it is curious that my opponent's objection to the financial benefits given to married couples was never mentioned in RD 1. He only ever mentions civil benefits, and is careful to define them as non-financial.

2. My opponent makes the assertion that "most competent individuals don't need assistance from the government to thrive." That desperately needs a warrant. The reason we have a system of progressive taxes is because, over the course of running the country, we've discovered that competence doesn't necessarily relate at all to ability to survive. If we have to get into a mini-debate about fiscal policy, we can do that, but I don't think we have the characters available. I maintain that the financial benefits of married couples are designed to assist them in survival as well as encourage committed coupling.

"Part Two"

"Part two" was a cross-application, not a restatement, but that makes my job easier, as I can just forward readers to my extensive rebuttal to his on my contention 1. Extend this.

On the Conclusion:

Alternative 1: Marriage Licenses…

So, you want to keep marriage, but get rid of all the financial benefits associated with it? Would that not still violate the basic principle of your advocacy, which is to favor couples who choose to label themselves as married via the state? Furthermore, you state: "there should be some form of legal contract that grants most of the civil benefits granted by marriage to a couple." Your 2nd contention is about how all those civil benefits can be gained in ways other than via a marriage license (i.e. we don't need marriage because you can get its benefits in other, better ways). Either you gain absolutely no offense off of your 2nd contention, or you are required to give up your solution. Otherwise, you have this huge contradiction on your hands. Finally, abolishing marriage "as it is in the United States of America" is abolishing marriage.

Alternative 2: Lifestyle Choice

Giving them as examples of other, voluntary lifestyle choices is a direct comparison. I was attacking your proposed alternative on the basis that, while that alternative works perfectly well for vegan-ism or nudism, it fails miserably for marriage. Your alternative fails as an alternative because, as I stated in RD 1: "Unlike a sexual orientation that will result in the pairing of individuals who will share some portion of their entire lives with another, me choosing to not ingest meat or dairy products will most likely not lead directly to a nuclear family, a shared household, or any number of different life changes that a partnering would result in."
Debate Round No. 2
Korashk

Pro

I apologize for my fairly late response and I'll likely keep the closing round brief.

~~~~~~~
Rebuttals
~~~~~~~

///The benefits arising from such a contract are the state's way of expressing approval for committed behavior. The license is the government's way of rewarding what is supposed to be a lifelong commitment to creating a nuclear family. As my sources and case state, nuclear families with two parents produce statistically more healthy children.///

The government should have no stake in my personal life. Marriage is ultimately the end result of an emotion that more than half of the time doesn't even last. And I've already given the example that a couple doesn't need to be married to raise a child together or have a stable household.
~

///While the system of rewards may need to be revamped, or educational opportunities may need to be seized to encourage a respect for the institution of marriage, banning it won't gain any positive good or improve what that divorce rate *really* indicates: that the American people have a distorted view of commitment.///

Again, I'm not advocating for the removal of marriage, but marriage as it currently is. This point really only supports my point by stating that marriage should be revamped.
~

///The warrant for marriage leading to other commitments is logical, rather than statistical. If we can both agree that relationship-based commitment begets the ability to commit to other tasks (which my opponent concedes to), and marriage is another commitment, then the proof is there. The license, again, is the state encouraging such commitments to flourish.///

Again, it is not the slip of paper that leads to this increased ability for commitment, it is the buildup of the relationship over time. While the paper does add some level to the commitment it is not the deciding factor as to whether or not commitment is already there.
~

///Therefore, please extend the fact that marriage helps recognize minority rights, thereby increasing protection of fundamental rights within the U.S.///

Marriage doesn't help us recognize minority rights. Marriage, in the context that you're using it in and based on the way it currently is in America, explicitly excludes minorities from participating.
~

///My opponent assumes here that marriage licenses are just impossible to get. If one of these unmarried couples wants these benefits, they simply need to seek a license, and benefits shall ensue. If they are already committed at home, then why not claim one's voucher of recognition from the state?///

Here's a little hypothetical situation:

Steve and Joe have been in a relationship for many years and raise a child together that came out of Joe's first marriage, his wife died and he didn't ever love another until Steve came along. Steve and Joe can't go to the courthouse and get a marriage license because marriage is between a man and a woman in the state that they live in. Their only options are for one of them to get married to a woman, abusing the system, or move to a state where gay people can get married, creating a huge burden on themselves.
~

///Do all citizens have the "right" to a dependent tax break if they choose not to have children (since this is a lifestyle choice, as well)? No, because it doesn't work that way.///

You seem to think that I am advocating a system where everyone should be granted the financial benefits when I'm actually advocating for a system where no one does. This is off the debate topic and really not applicable in this debate but I will say that I am also against dependent tax breaks. As you stated, no one forced you to have a dependent, why should you benefit from it?
~

///If we have to get into a mini-debate about fiscal policy, we can do that, but I don't think we have the characters available. I maintain that the financial benefits of married couples are designed to assist them in survival as well as encourage committed coupling.///

Our ideologies differ on this issue, you think the state is obligated to work towards the benefit of society, I think that society is responsible to work towards the benefit of society while being protected from those outside of the society by the government. This point will likely have to be determined by the voters.
~

///Otherwise, you have this huge contradiction on your hands. Finally, abolishing marriage "as it is in the United States of America" is abolishing marriage.///

No it isn't. Is marriage in other countries exactly the same as it is in America? It doesn't matter what the proposed civil benefits package is called. Call it "a,kserjnmhjf" aka "Smash my fists on the keyboard" if you want to, it doesn't matter.
~

I conclusion my proposed alternatives to marriage are acceptable and I believe that I have successfully help up the resolution. I urge a Pro vote.
alto2osu

Con

Thank you one last time to the Pro for this excellent debate. I, too, apologize for my tardy response. Moving, graduate school, a second debate, and general life implosion stopped me from posting sooner. :) I'll be presenting some analysis on key voting issues I think have emerged in the last 2.5 rounds.

Voter 1: State's Interest in Encouraging Commitment/Nuclear Families

My opponent has said two things to counter the state's interest in encouraging accountability and commitment via nuclear families: that the government should have no stake in his personal life, and that couples don't have to be married to raise a child or have a stable household. These are the same things that he gave during the previous round, without deference to the responses I provided to them in RD 2. Allow me to remind voters why this argument is still a valid reason to vote Con:

-"As my sources and case state, nuclear families with two parents produce statistically more healthy children. Of course, there are exceptions to every statistical proof, but that doesn't inherently devalue my data. The state need only encourage what maximizes societal good."—I don't have to prove that every single family must be nuclear to maximize benefit to the state. My evidence has yet to be refuted, so I am currently winning the cost/benefit analysis in this debate. At the point where the institution of state-sanctioned marriage is providing more good than bad, you vote Con.

-The state, according to the basic philosophical and political tenets that comprise this nation's government, does have an obligation to maximize societal welfare and individual citizen welfare (see Locke and Rousseau). The state only exists to serve the citizens who compose it, which means that one's individual life, at times, cannot be separated from the state. Since I already discussed how the institution of marriage does not, in fact, violate any civil rights possessed by a citizen, and maximizes societal and individual benefit in more than one way, there's valid reason for the government to offer this incentive as a vehicle to greater prosperity. Furthermore, marriage is hardly a trendsetter in this department.

Voter 2: Marriage Licenses vs. What They Stand For

Again, it is not the slip of paper that leads to this increased ability for commitment, it is the buildup of the relationship over time. While the paper does add some level to the commitment it is not the deciding factor as to whether or not commitment is already there.

Since RD 2, we've both agreed that the slip of paper known as a marriage license is not the impetus for commitment and accountability. However, it is the voucher given to you by the state as evidence of such commitment. My opponent has yet to actually address this properly in the debate. Furthermore, this entire line of argumentation is kind of auxiliary to the debate in the first place, since my opponent objects to the rewards provided by the possession of the license. I'm attempting to justify those rewards by explaining the purpose of the marriage institution in general, and my opponent is trying to steal my ground, essentially, by saying "the Con is only allowed to argue about the importance of the license and not the institution of marriage." This goes back to his fuzzy advocacy regarding keeping marriage but getting rid of it at the same time.

Voter 3: Benefit to Homosexuals

My opponent dropped this entirely in RD 2, and then mishandles it in RD 3. I'm talking about potential solvency for homosexual couples, which has already occurred in a few places. If we eliminate the marriage institution, then we have no hope of allowing that group of people to declare their commitment and have it recognized by the state (unless you buy my opponent's ground-stealing interpretation of the resolution). Currently, certain states do stop homosexuals from marrying. However, the only reason to actually care about this is the abuse of that group in that the government refuses to recognize them as a legitimate couple. Challenging such state laws via the Supreme Court and fighting for the legalization of marriage for the gay community, much like any previous civil rights movement, will do more to equalize homosexuals than any action Pro could propose within the bounds of the resolution.

To address my opponent's Steve and Joe hypothetical, Pro can't solve for Steve and Joe. The Con advocacy allows Steve and Joe to at least have the potential of rights recognition from the state.

Voter 4: Ideology Clash

At the point where my opponent is challenging all financial benefits from the state, he is not just asking us to eliminate marriage. He is asking us to restructure the entire US economy and tax system, which is clearly not within the purview of the debate. I used the dependent tax reduction as an example, but if he objects to the fundamental workings of the US tax system, that's a whole other debate. If we are to properly debate marriage, then we really do need to have some parameters, and we must assume that we will be operating in a relatively predictable world.

Voter 5: Alternatives to Marriage by Pro

The issue of my opponent's actual stance has become a key issue in this debate. My opponent chose to address only one, single line of a very large piece of analysis on his contradictory position of keeping marriage and eliminating it at the same time. This is key, as he's getting most of his offense from this single issue in the debate. However, I maintain that he hasn't done enough to convince you that he isn't simply stealing Con ground. Allow me to reiterate my reasoning from the previous 2 rounds:

-The position of "no marriage" as established in my opponent's case and full resolution clearly indicates abolition, or elimination. "As it is in the United States" makes absolutely zero difference, since it's still an elimination. Changing pieces of it, or advocating that we not eliminate it all together for the benefits, is perfectly acceptable Con ground. I even made sure to address the contradictory remarks he made at the end of RD 1 in which he claimed that, while abolishing something, he could still advocate to keep it. As pointed out in RD 2, he further complicates his position by stating "there should be some form of legal contract that grants most of the civil benefits granted by marriage to a couple." However, his entire 2nd contention in RD 1 was about how civil benefits aren't a reason to keep marriage. That's the contradiction. You lose offense no matter what you choose at that point.

-I already covered the problematic nature of considering it merely a lifestyle choice, and that wasn't addressed in RD 2, so extend it again.

In conclusion, if we take a look at the cost/benefit analysis coming out of these 3 rounds, a Con vote will result, frankly, in more net benefit. It benefits the individual both fiscally and with regards to "civil benefits." It benefits the state and society in its encouragement of committed, nuclear family household structures. It benefits current civil rights movements and the homosexual community. Con has more than fulfilled its burden, while the Pro's advocacy rests on quasi-affirming. I encourage a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alto2osu 3 years ago
alto2osu
Agreed. Which is why it might be a good idea to find someone to correct it :)
Posted by Korashk 3 years ago
Korashk
I don't really care, the bomb doesn't really change the outcome of the debate right now. But I don't want to lose because of one, and I don't think you want to win because of one.
Posted by alto2osu 3 years ago
alto2osu
Do you wanna do that? Then I just won't vote. Either that, or get a friend to do it :) Just have them stick a note in the comments or something. Cuz I agree, that is lame sauce.
Posted by Korashk 3 years ago
Korashk
I kinda hope that someone cancels out that votebomb. That guy votes all 7 against me on almost all of my debates.
Posted by alto2osu 3 years ago
alto2osu
FYI, Korashk: I will only cast my vote if you do :) I figure that's only fair.
Posted by innomen 3 years ago
innomen
If it were worded differently i would agree with Pro, but as such it is not supportable. The abolition of marriage, and the banning of marriage would be violations of the 1st amendment and an unlawful intrusion of the pursuit of happiness in the citizenry of this country.

If the country were to no longer provide a legal provision for marriage, that would gain my support. Marriage is a spiritual matter, not a legal one - in my oh so humble opinion.
Posted by Rockylightning 3 years ago
Rockylightning
you couldve had a better motion...
Posted by alto2osu 3 years ago
alto2osu
I haven't debated in a while, so I think I'll snag this one :)
Posted by Danielle 3 years ago
Danielle
I agree with Pro, though I can counter his arguments. However I'd get v-bombed either way so now I'm just deciding if I care: if I care enough that I will get v-bombed (hmm... nah) or if I care enough to take up this debate (still deciding lol).
Posted by rougeagent21 3 years ago
rougeagent21
Phu? Sorry bud, I won't have the time to finish this one out. AP tests and such.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by acidburnn 3 years ago
acidburnn
Korashkalto2osuTied
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 sidobagga 3 years ago
sidobagga
Korashkalto2osuTied
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 Hellsdesire55 3 years ago
Hellsdesire55
Korashkalto2osuTied
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:25