Marriage should not be redefined or gay marriage should be illegal

Civil Union definitionMy opponent defines civil union in a way that I cannot possibly refute. He defines it to mean the exact practical & legal definiton as marriage. He states that Civil Union has the same definition as marriage (stating it will have "same benefits" as marriage, with "no difference"). In fact, the definition of Civil Marriage is: "a legally recognized union of a same-sex couple, with rights similar to those of marriage"[1]. However, my opponent wishes to replace "with rights similar" to "with rights the same as". This makes the definition "a legally recognized union of a same-sex couple", with union meaning the same thing as marriage[2] sans opposite sex.In short, my opponent has simply attempted to define civil union and marriage into a position which is impossible to refute, regardless of arguments. MarriageI feel my opponent is flogging a dead horse with marriage being intwined with procreation. I have stated repeatedly that I disagree, and repeatedly that I would like some reason to believe this to be true. Sadly, my opponent has not done so. Maybe to some marriage is intwined with procreation, I accept that. But the opinion of the minority does not outweight that of the majority on politial issues. I provided multiple sources last round that it would be in favour of democracy if we legalised SSM. Sadly, my opponent dropped this argument. My opponent, in addition, argued that marriage would "harm their own family and society in general". Again, this is an unsubstantiated claim, and I disagree. Again, my opponent makes an ubsubstantiated claim about the 'nuclear family'. Again, I disagree. Times change, we need to change with them. It's just a part of modernising our values with our new knowledge: just a part of the betterment of society. The 'bigotry' of SSMMy opponent states that I 'concede' the argument that it would change the definition of marriage, and view marriage as bigotry. Again, in the 1960s, marriage was seen as white-white only. This view is blatantly seen as bigotry now by the vast majority of people. I feel that promoting only man-woman marriage will fall into the category of white-white marriage if we legalise it. And I think that it is a good thing, not a bad. My opponent, in short, has not made an arguement here.Scrimping and SavingMy opponent concedes that it would save money to legalise marriage. It would save a more than 100 million dollars in california alone by my source, and by his it would save a billion (both per year) for the country. I'm not sure of the criticism to be quite blunt. I feel this is a concession that it would save money, and therefore it should be legalised. Maybe it is a 'minor' amount of money, but this improvement of efficiency is greatly beneficial. In addition, his source is from '97 (the citation linking from wikipedia): it is incredibly likely that the facts have changed over time, and more likely than not nearer my favour (as my sources being both more modern and promoting my argument more strongly). International LawMy opponent states that "sexual orientation is not considered a status in every country either", to which I refer him article 2 (which he has failed to address) "no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." Furthermore, the UN Declaration was set up to be able to legally punish the nazis for war crimes (as they broke no laws at the end of WW2 because of the holocaust being legal in germany). The entire basis of its existence is to criticise countries where something "is not considered a status in [a] country". Miscellanious and terrible spelling of the word missileanymoose "Gays can marry anyone of the opposite sex for responsible procreation and rearing of children". I contend that homosexuals can do so without: a surrogate, or adoption, allow the rearing of children with great ease.Arguments dropped by my opponent include the libertarian argument in R4 (clearly stated as "a turn argument") and the democracy argument in R4 (also stated as "a turn argument").My opponent repeatedly flip-flopped on the definition of marriage, and has attempted to define civil union to make the debate fruitless. In addition, he had ignored my asking for reasoning behind the definition of marriage. By the end of the debate, my opponent's only argument which harms my case (his only remaining offensive argument), the argument that it would weaken the institute of marriage, is based on unsubstantiated claims of what marriage is, while I continue with the offensive arguments:SSM promotes democracy, SSM promotes financial wellbeing of the state, SSM promotes children's wellbeing (see R2), SSM is recognised and promoted as per international law.Finally, I wish to point out the resolution holds an "or" in the title. This means that I have had to prove either "Marriage should be redefined" or "gay marriage should be illegal" to be false. I have focused on the second, not the first, debate issue. In light of these points, I thank my opponent for debating with me on this issue, but urge a vote CON.1 - http://oxforddictionaries.com...;2 - http://oxforddictionaries.com...;