Marriage should be abolished as a legal institution

Continuing the previous format: "I think that, largely, we are going to travel in circles with this debate if neither of us offer up substantial new points. Thus, this is what I am going to try to do. " 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. "Rather [/i], Civil Unions and homosexual marriage should be given the same status as marriage possesses. " Giving Civil Unions the same status as "traditional marriage" requires convincing everyone, including religious extremists, that homosexuals should be accepted within society, something that is rather impossible at this this point. It is much easier to simply take away the legal benefits of a discriminatory system instead of providing an alternative, non-discriminatory system. "I seem to note that extensive legal processes have been performed by the law in regards to homosexuality and civil unions. " They have not been given "due process" because many of them have no legal standing to sue for their rights. As it currently works, the only way for you to sue in our legal system is for you to have had a "right" taken away from you. If you never had that right in the first place, then you can't legally sue for it, unless it is on the grounds of unconstitutionality. Even then the Supreme Court has so far refused to hear any of the cases presented to it, instead relying on the prior precedence. So your point here is rather misguided - they have not been given "due process", and even if they had, that does not exempt laws from being declared unconstitutional or illegal. "As the Jurisdiction lies within the state, each state can thus rule upon its own decision as regarding the Constitution. " This is ridiculously incorrect. Anyone who has ever taken a US history or Political Science course will agree with me. One state cannot debate the Constitutionality of the First Amendment, and then decide not to enforce it. You are clearly misinformed about the nature of our legal system, and I would suggest you avoid making these statements for the sake of your own argument. "And, thus, as such, they are not impeding the the legal rights of civil unions according to the 14th. " As long as they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, they are violating the 14th Amendment, regardless of "due process" or not. "Due process" simply guarantees them the right to a trial by jury within a reasonable time frame - it says nothing about the Constitutionality of the law. "And, no substantial legislation has recently been passed in which to prevent the union of homosexuals or like parties. " Just because this is the worst contrived argument you have written, I'm going to simply list states that directly refute your claim by defining "marriage as between a man and a woman", whether through DOMA or State Constitutional amendments,; or both: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. As you can see, your just wrong on this point. Furthermore, "recently" passed has no bearing on my argument. An unconstitutional law passed 500 years ago is still unconstitutional. "Thus, advances are being made, but more importantly, the 14th amendment is NOT being defied or broken in any way. " If full rights are not given equally and immediately, the 14th is being violated. It is not a "halfsies" sort of thing. Again, your ignorance of the law is destroying your own argument. "The limit of rights that result do not suddenly appear as a surprise. " I'm glad you now agree with my argument. As their "rights" are being limited - something expressly and explicitly prohibited by the 14th Amendment - marriage laws are unconstitutional. You just effectively conceded this debate, and I again urge the audience to vote Pro if not just for this statement. "Each person fully realizes what s/he is doing and that there are certain consequences (such as the lack of rights as compared to those granted to heterosexuals). " Their realizing of a lack of rights does not make those lack of rights either morally or legally acceptable. The 14th Amendment does not allow us to ignore inequalities because people know they exist. This is a ridiculous argument that I'm surprised even you decided to pursue. " "Marriage itself is a 'holy union' between couples" Exactly. It should have no legal or economic aspect to it. Even suggesting that degrades the 'sanctity' of marriage more so than arguing that homosexuals should be allowed to be "married" in the same manner as religious people. It seems you've simply given up in this debate. "Of course, the public opinion against homosexuals is often highly discriminatory, of which case they aren't 'lording' their 'elite' status but rather expressing disgust over the immoral actions of another. " I'm quoting this just so the audience can read it again. Furthermore, I'm so disappointed in this argument I'm not going to acknowledge it's lack of validity. "Prostitution is distinctly similar to the 'engagement period', except more short term and for a certain degree of money. " In other words, they're nothing alike. Nice argument. "living with an opposite sex before marriage does oppose traditional family values" No, it opposes your values. Do not be so arrogant to claim that it opposes my traditional values. "Just because parents wish to teach their children family values, they live in the stone age? Quite biased, that. " Again, you using hyperbole out of context is a rather shallow tactic. I never stated anywhere in my argument I was against parents teaching their children values. I said people that lived in the 14th and 15th Centuries held the view that living with the opposite sex was a sin, which is quite coincidently the same values you seem to hold. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: I had hoped this debate would be about the constitutionality of marriage laws, but instead my opponent chose to ignore this aspect of my debate and in its place he offered some of the worst refutations I have ever seen. Furthermore, he refuted not a single one of my points, and in this last round, he even decided to admit that my contention and resolution were valid - while simultaneously still trying to argue I was wrong.