Sometimes, however, leaving a marriage is best for the health, happiness, and safety of everyone involved.
Report this Argument Con Thank you for your quick response. I'm just going to cut to the chase here over the relevant points of the debate.
The one contention that is actually going to matter here at the end is whether or not marriages need special legal rights. My opponent brings up hospital visits as an example. However, why have hospitals restrict who visits you in a hospital? Shouldn't that decision be up to you?
Therefore, in response to this "marriage right," I propose that hospitals collect lists from everyone listing who they'd wish to allow to visit them in a hospital emergency. This would result in no possible discrimination whatsoever, except at the whims of the person being visited, where the power fully deserves to be.
You want to let your girlfriend in? A gay could let their gay lover in. A polygamist could let in all of his wives. The end result is less government win and more liberty win. It's a clear win-win situation.
Now, to address even more "marriage rights" : Most of these, especially the tax benefits, are simply discriminatory tax cuts, which my opponent has conceded are unnecessary.
For Estate Planning Benefits, both people should simply write wills when they're married.
The numerous exemptions listed are merely more discrimination against non-married people. For Government Benefits, a person should simply state who they would wish to share benefits with.
Maybe two roommates wish to share social security benefits without being known as gay.
For military benefits, a person signing up could be asked who they would like to receive benefits from their service, which could be parents, a girlfriend, etc. Employment Benefits, Housing Benefits, and Consumer Benefits are all part of the private sector, so people could work that out amongst themselves, with no unnecessary government interference.
Medical Benefits were already covered by the above example, although the list could include who a person would wish to handle medical affairs should he become incapacitated.
Maybe you're in college, and your roommate knows you best, and you want your roommate to make the decisions. Why should government stop you? Family Benefits include adoption of children which could easily be taken care of during the adoption, rather than during the marriage, so the government involvement in marriage is unnecessarydivision of money in a divorce easily handled by a joint bank account that covers the value of all possessionsand child custody which, again, should be handled at birth or at adoption rather than at marriageleaving no reason for government involvement in marriage, but rather in parenting.
For Death Benefits, one could simply include in their will who they'd wish to manage the affairs of their death. If your spouse dies with you? Why restrict people's liberties?
The martial communications privilege is an example of discrimination against non-married people. For the crime victim recovery benefits, I'd like to select who receives that myself. We should not give immigration and residency privileges through marriage, because that encourages marrying for citizenship, and we've probably already got some undercover business involved in marrying and divorcing for money in exchange for free citizenship.
Visiting rights in jails are the same as for hospitals, although jails might put a cap on the number of people who can visit at once or total.
Every single right that my opponent cited should not be restricted to married peoples only. Therefore, there is no reason for government involvement in marriage.
Now that I've established that, I'll switch back to refuting the relevant contentions. The Utility Factor My opponent claims that he claimed that we could legalize gay marriage without tax cuts.
However, he did not. The rights from the legalization of gay marriage besides tax cuts were only brought up in this last round. He has now claimed that we could legalize gay marriage without tax cuts, and no sooner.
Additionally, I have already shown that the rights of marriage are discriminatory, and either nobody should get them tax cuts, exemptions, etc. Gay marriage bans violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.The Origins of No-Fault Divorce: In , California changed the way people look at divorce and made it a lot easier to get out of a marriage by passing the second no-fault divorce law in the United States.
In , Oklahoma passed the countries first no-fault divorce laws doing away with the need. Soc Final. STUDY. the racial-ethnic group with the highest divorce rate in the United States is: African American.
Which of the following were not official reasons for divorce in the era of divorce tolerance? Which of the following is not an argument given for why same-sex marriages should be. 1 HOW NOT TO START YOUR LEGAL ARGUMENT The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees .
APUSH Chapter STUDY. PLAY. In the s, an argument in favor of political parties was the belief that. a permanent political opposition was useful to the democracy.
In the debate over the Bank of the United States, President Andrew Jackson supported the interests of. the "hard-money" advocates. Start studying Sociology Exam 3. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
Search. Teenage pregnancy rates in the United States have been increasing steadily since the s. False. What is an argument in favor of euthanasia? d. All of the above are arguments in favor of euthanasia. In the s, an argument in favor of political parties was the belief that a permanent political opposition was useful to the democracy Today, the oldest political part in .