Marriage should be abolished as a legal institution

In some jurisdictions, such as Quebec, New Zealand, and Uruguay, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples." ~ It is true that this union could be known as the engagement period, but it is also obvious that a heterosexual union can be a civil union. Firstly, marriage itself discriminates against nothing, does it? That is a fallacious assumption which states that married couples intentionally lord their married status over that of others. One couldn't be more wrong. It is not the married couples' fault that civil unions and homosexual marriage aren't recognized with the same degree of rights. Marriage is the most intimate relationship that can be found. It is also the most moral union of people. The reasons homosexuals and civil unions aren't completely recognized is because their union, though their right, is not officially moral. Neither is prostitution or living with each-other or sleeping together without being married. I believe that the majority of humanity still realizes that these things are morally wrong, even if they aren't religious people. "The two are entirely different. One is a religious ceremony endorsed by a Priest of some sort. One is private contract between two citizens endorsed by the Government" A marriage ceremony can be conducted by a Justice of the Peace or a Judge. I think also that a ship's captain still maintains the authority to perform marriage in some areas of the world. These people aren't priests - marriage doesn't have to be religious - it just has to be recognized as such on moral guidelines by an authority. "False. Marriage is legally defined as the union of a male and a female. As such, and with respect to it economic benefits, it is discriminatory in nature and in violation of the 14th Amendment." I don't believe your sources are correct or applicable everywhere in the world. Marriage is often defined as so if the couple is legally united. This does include common law marriage. As I have before stated, by completely abolishing marital status, you would be breaking the 14th. Rather, all status should be granted as marital as long as it is officially performed. No, marriage is the most intimate result of true love that can be found. It cannot be abolished or the people forced to apply for civil union. Rather, the civil unions should need to apply for marriage. In some churches, Homosexuals and civil Unions can be officially married. Abolishing slavery and abolishing the status of marriage are two entirely different and irrelevant comparisons. Slavery was cruelty in keeping one in a state of servitude. Marriage is not a cruelty. Rather, marriage is the purest form a couple can apply for. It is the peak of morality. Abolishing the status would be as unjust as personally forcing each person into servitude. "My resolution in no way abridges the rights of religious people to get "married" if they choose to. Instead, my resolution extends those rights previously exclusive to heterosexual couples to all couples. This is a distinction you cannot refute." Exactly what I have been saying. If all couples were officially married and granted marital status, then there would be no purpose for abolishing that status. Thank you for clarifying my point. The basis behind the benefits of marriage is obviously not discrimination. It is rather a reward for bring morally proper. It is incentive for couples to do what is right and become officially and legally married. I do believe that certain species roam in packs, such as lions. One male to a bride of lionesses, correct? does that mean that polygamy is morally proper? Of course not. If you abolish marriage, as your argument states, then you are, in fact, creating a deterioration of society.