I should be allowed to marry Mother Earth!

Now onto my what will my last round for this argument as Pro has specified that round four is exclusively for him. Rebuttals: Pro first states that the *small* argument that they displayed in round two has somehow had the capacity to "destroy me", however this is quite clearly not the case as I have provided an actual argument of my own and fully rebutted all of Pros points. I'd note to voters that this comment could technically be a violation of conduct rules. And more to the point: Pro has literally given no argument that has either responded to my own contentions or been superior in any way. Regarding Pros "sources", the first one simply leads to: "object sexuality illegal" conducted on a Polish search engine. NO evidence for Pros case has been established and this link does simply not count. I will reiterate the reasons: -It doesn't direct me [or any potential readers] to any specific website that supports Pros argument. -Technically, "mother earth" is still not defined as an "object". The "earth" is in fact defined as: 1. the fragmental material composing part of the surface of the globe; especially : cultivable soil. 2. the sphere of mortal life as distinguished from spheres of spirit life — compare heaven, hell. 3. areas of land as distinguished from sea and air. So the earth is absolutely not an "object". This relates directly to Pros examples of actual objects and people deciding to marry them. For example, the second source starts off by listing someone who has married a steam train--which is one specific movable object, and more importantly not something that could possibly be compared to mother earth. A steam train is defined by the following: "A train that is powered by a steam engine. "Thus showing that it is entirely different to "mother earth" and does not count as a valid comparison or contention in Pros argument. Another point would be that the person in question could physically touch this steam train and spend quality time with it, whereas mother earth represents the entire planet earth; which means that is not present in one specific place. The third link [I'd highlight that they're all from the same website] shows a woman who married the Berlin Wall. Once again though, this simply fails due to the fact that the Berlin wall *was* entirely different to mother earth. As with the train example, it is a specific object that is exclusive to one place. Perhaps the strongest rebuttal to Pros argument is that all these cases have occurred with man-made "objects". Both a train and a wall are created and established by men alone. Whereas mother earth is wholly natural and came into existence without any involvement from human beings--obviously, IT existed before us. It is not something that one is able to build or replace; which is precisely what trains and walls are. The exact same applies to a man marrying a picture of himself, a photographic frame with someone's picture placed inside it is nothing like "mother earth". For the same reasons as given above: a picture is a specific object, and it is man-made. Regarding source five, this is merely the same as link three. In this round alone Pro has made two separate serious errors with his "sources", including linking a Google search and then using the same one twice. This in turn places his sources down to three. Additionally, the website "Ranker" is primarily used for entertainment and is generally opinion-based. Therefore it shouldn't exactly be considered "credible" or placed above any of my sources. In my main argument, I used four separate links that all direct to proper articles. The Cornell University Law School in particular gave a clear and reliable description of what constitutes an actual "marriage". And the last two sources used provide specific reasons on as to why laws exist in the first place and how they are to protect freedom instead of undermine it, which is basically what Pro argued in round two. **Concluding Argument**Ultimately Pro has failed to fulfill his (shared) BoP and outline a full and logical argument for why he should be "allowed to marry mother earth". Instead he's stated his opinion in a few small sentences, and made some rather large inaccuracies. As well as not giving any real arguments himself, Pro has also not responded to any of my points properly or given any rebuttals to them. Unlike Pro, I've given a full case and elaborated on each of my contentions--and used more valid sources that verify my argument directly.