Marriage should be abolished as a legal institution

We are going in circles because you are avoiding the points I have made in the previous rounds, and now only in the last round have decided to address them" And in likewise manner you are ignoring many of my greatest points. Of course it is impossible! That is because the majority of society are largely against homosexual marriage due to its moral implications. Thanks for clarifying why marriage shouldn't be abolished. It shouldn't be abolished because it is the status of a properly united couple. No legal standings? Then I guess the legal decisions we are perpetually hearing about worldwide don't have any validity. In which case, the Government has already enacted a decision in the courts. In fact, just the fact that homosexual marriage is allowed in some States is enough to demonstrate the pliability of the Government due to prior processes, as you have indicated. Jeepers criminy, your grasp of English definitions has led to complete err in comprehending what I meant. I stated that each State is completely within its Judicial rights to follow the Constitution, which states, 'Within due processes of the law.' Since the Supreme courts and the Federal Government have not ruled homosexual marriage and the rights that result from it unconstitutional, the State receives the jurisdiction to make its own decision on the matter (Within the Constitution). This is why some states prohibit gay marriage and some don't. In the Country of Canada, homosexual marriage has been legalized. However, they don't receive the same rights as legitimately married couples. But why should Canada then take away the rights of a morally married couple? These people already have rights. To do so would blatantly defy the Charter. Likewise to the USA. Again I will state that inaction against Civil Unions and Homosexual marriage are not in defiance of the Constitution. However, diminishing marital status would be violating the rights of the people. You are correct, legislation cannot defy the Constitution. Thus none can be passed to prohibit marriage. Marriage Laws are not unconstitutional. In fact, Marriage laws are completely constitutional. Nice try to twist it and scream 'prejudism', but no matter what happens regarding Civil Unions, one cannot refute that Marriage is Constitutional. Perhaps it is incorrect that Civil unions aren't granted the same rights, but that does not mean that marriage should lose its Constitutional status. Rather, as I have stated before, Civil Unions may just have their rights adjusted to equal that of marriage, even if they aren't married by 'religious' definition. I can state at least a dozen areas where you use hyperboles out of context. Quaint accusation - maybe I should allot you brownie points? I don't see why I should bash my opponent's arguments. They were well thought out, but the sheer bias of what he is arguing instigates that he could never win. To diminish one's status in support of another is discrimination, is it not? Especially when a tactic of allotting the same amount of rights to both is a plausible venture. For this reason, I don't think it is necessary to urge you to vote for 'con', as my opponent has done for himself. Ladies and gents, the case before you is obvious. Thanks for the interesting debate. Cheers