Marriage should be abolished as a legal institution

Continuing the previous format: "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." This was clearly not my contention. You stated that unmarried heterosexual couples can be considered as having a "civil union" before they are married, which is quite simply wrong. A civil union must be endorsed in some manner by a third party, it's not simply an agreement between two people to get married at some later point. As such, your point is irrelevant and my contention still stands: Marriage and Civil Unions are in no way equal. "Firstly, marriage itself discriminates against nothing, does it?" No you're being intentionally thick. Marriage obviously discriminates, because not everyone can get a marriage. This is not a point you can refute. "That is a fallacious assumption which states that married couples intentionally lord their married status over that of others." They do "lord" their status over others when they say only heterosexual couples can get married in order to "preserve" the sanctity of what they have. I'm unsure of what you might call that, other than "lording" or some other euphemistic synonym. Hence, it is not in the slightest fallacious to say that married people against homosexual unions are elitist, but this is beside the point: marriage licenses in the first place are unconstitutional - a point you have yet to refute with any evidence to the contrary. "Marriage is the most intimate relationship that can be found. It is also the most moral union of people." Personal opinions aside, if this is true how can you deny participation in such a union? Doing so would be unforgivably immoral, a fact I have pointed out all ready and one which you continue to ignore. "The reasons homosexuals and civil unions aren't completely recognized is because their union, though their right, is not officially moral." Explain to me what is "officially moral". Then explain to me the reason why you get to decide the morality of another person's decision which in way directly effects your life, other then offending your sensibilities - which is not illegal. "Neither is prostitution or living with each-other or sleeping together without being married." Prostitution and Homosexual marriage are incomparable in terms of morality. To make such an argument is fallacious and ignorant. Furthermore, living with the opposite sex is generally not considered immoral unless you live in the 15th Century and burn witches. "I believe that the majority of humanity still realizes that these things are morally wrong, even if they aren't religious people." Provide proof that the "majority of humanity" believes living with the opposite sex is immoral. Again, my opponent continues to make unfounded claims and refuses to address arguments for which I have provided evidence and he cannot seemingly refute. "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." This is beside the point. When they preform a "marriage", they are acting as an agent of religion - as they are preforming an explicitly religious ceremony. "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." You seem to be under the assumption here the marriage and civil unions are equivalent, so I'll try this again. Marriages are inherently religious - this is a fact you cannot dispute. Conversely, civil unions need not be religious and therefore can be preformed by an agent of the Government. "I don't believe your sources are correct or applicable everywhere in the world." Give me one example of anywhere in the world where the conventional notion of a "marriage" has been between anything but a male and a female. Furthermore, my contention obviously does not apply to the entire world, and I never asserted it did. I simply said marriage licenses are unconstitutional (read: with respect to the U.S. Constitution), a point you have yet to refute and have consistently avoided throughout this response. "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." You clearly are not even aware what we are arguing. I am not advocating for the abolishment of "marriage". I am arguing that we should remove the legal and socio-economic benefits from it because it is discriminatory. This is a point you should try and understand before responding again. "Rather, all status should be granted as marital as long as it is officially performed." All statuses cannot be declared marital because not all ceremonies are denominational, nor do all relationships abide within the confines of a religion. However a private contract between two people, and endorsed by the government, need not adhere to any of these tenets and is more universal in nature. "It cannot be abolished or the people forced to apply for civil union." Your using an ineffective appeal to emotion, specifically outrage here, because you are too unwilling to accept that religions are discriminatory - and as agents of religion, so are marriages. Furthermore, no one is being "forced" to apply for a civil union. If you would prefer to have a solely religious ceremony recognized by your church / temple, no one is going to stop you. However, if you would like the socio-economic benefits provided by the federal government, you should have to get a civil union in addition to your "marriage". "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." You cannot change my analogy to suit your purposes. You argued abolishing marriage would be an outrage, and therefore immoral. I argued that outraging a segment of the population is not necessarily an outrage, as declaring slavery illegal was an outrage to "slave owners", but was clearly the moral path necessary. Taken in context, my analogy still stands and regardless of your "moral" outrage, society has the obligation to insure equality among all segments of its population. "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." I addressed this point earlier. Furthermore, I would like to know your exact points of opposition to reaffirming marriage as a religious ceremony - specifically what are the downsides of doing so, other than losing your "power" to endorse the morality of a population's actions. "The basis behind the benefits of marriage is obviously not discrimination. It is rather a reward for bring morally proper." A "reward" for being morally proper? This is the most outrageous claim I have ever heard. For you to even make this argument makes me think you aren't taking this debate seriously. "If you abolish marriage, as your argument states, then you are, in fact, creating a deterioration of society." I've already stated extending equalities would in no way "deteriorate" society. You have yet to provide evidence that doing so would indeed lessen the quality of society Conclusion: My opponent continues to ignore the constitutionality argument I offered because he cannot refute it, therefore I await his response.