Remove 'marriage' from government language.

Definition of marriage>>> "Your definition of marriage is a little lacking" Correction: Pro is actually saying Merriam Webster's definition is. Not mine. >>> "In short, I do not have to prove 'marriage' is religious. History shows it has religious implications. "Actually, what Pro is doing right there is trying to prove marriage is religious. I'll be rebutting the argument. >>> 'Religious implications' of marriage The main problem with this argument is that it's. .. false. Marriage has been treated as a religious union by religious people, and it's been treated as what it is (my definition), by the rest. Just because some people treat something as religious doesn't mean it is religious. Merriam webster is my source. It's a credible dictionary. Pro simply brushed it aside, but provided no counter-definition with a source, only said that I'm wrong because of supposed "history". Once again, marriage is only a religious unity to religious people. It's open to interpretation depending on who is doing it, but it's really not religious. Pro has failed his burden of proof on this issue, and thus even if you buy all the rest of the argumentation, he can not win. Non-religious people marryingFinally, in the last round, Pro has clarified his position. It took much too long for a proper debate. Pro has still not answered, though, to the fact that replacing marriage with civil union would devalue unions. Non-religious people would now be "united" instead of "married". Marriage is now an unattainable high. Even if the government itself doesn't have anything to do with marriage, it's like they took marriage and put it on the top shelf so non-religious people can't reach it. Name changingYou see, now that Pro has finally clarified his position, this point doesn't apply and I would concede, except it's unfair. In debate we have a standard called "Prima facie", which means "at first sight". Basically, Pro needs to state his position clearly, or "at first sight", in the round. He chose round 1 as the beginning of the argument rather than acceptance, so it should have been clear what he wanted to do from round 1. However, Pro left clarification until round 3, when as he said I'm not allowed to create new arguments. This is inherently unfair and should mean a loss for Pro. I concede the name changing point because it doesn't apply anymore, but that also means Pro should lose for abuse. Civil unions not recognized in many statesOnce again, now that Pro finally clarified his position, this doesn't even stand. Imagine if Pro is allowed to do that in every debate round: hide his argument until the last round then show why all the arguments don't apply. That's what Pro did, and that should be punished by a vote for Con. SummaryAlthough Pro clarified in the last round to try to remove all my points, I still have two points standing, both worthy of a Con vote. 1. Pro has not proved his burden that marriage is religious. All his arguments pit on this. I have a definition, he doesn't.2. Removing marriage would devalue civil unions. Pro's pretty much only argument for removing marriage and replacing it with civil unions is the separation of church and state which "is one more step in equality". However, as I have proven, marriage is not only religious based on my definition. Thus Pro's arguments crumble. So, voting issues, or reasons why you should vote Con:Voting issue 1: Failed burden. See above, Pro did not prove his side. Voting issue 2: Devaluing civil unionsOnly religious people would get the high shelf product of "marriage" rather than just a civil union. Voting issue 3: Prima FaciePro did not present his case "at first sight".