Marriage should be abolished as a legal institution

I will be addressing my opponent's argument on a line-by-line basis for the sake of clarity "So you encourage Civil Unions over legitimate and (ultimately) moral marriage?" How is something that does not discriminate less moral than something that does? Logically, that is the least sound argument I have read on this site. "You state that marriage should be abolished as a legal institution, but yet that civil union are a perfect example of a legal institution? In essence, the two are the same." 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. "Marriage is a commitment to another, no matter what the sex." 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. "In fact, a civil Unions is often defined as heterosexuals whom just haven't legally married, yet." Also false. That period of time is commonly called an 'engagement period'. A civil union and a marriage are entirely different forms of contractual obligation. "Furthermore, you advocate the rights of parties of civil unions (gay marriage, for example), but you state that peaceful religious beliefs are intolerable?" No, I said people who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are intolerant, such as people of faith - though you are correct in assuming one could make the argument that intolerance is intolerable. "Legally Married couples have rights. The majority of people are legally married - who are you to say that the rights that these people have gained with their moral status should be abolished?" Yes legally married couples have rights - rights that are exclusive to the heterosexual segment of our population. Furthermore, the rights of this heterosexual group of people would in no way be legally abridged, because they can still get married if they choose to participate in that religious ceremony. However, if "married" couples want the socioeconomic benefits they previously enjoyed, they would have to get a civil union - though I doubt very much that would be a hardship considering Civil Unions are non-discriminatory and non-denominational. "Marriage is a practice as old as humanity itself." The length of time a practice has endured does not denote is validity or practicality. "Abolishing its legal status would be an outrage among legally married people." So was abolishing slavery among slave-owners, and yet it was morally and legally the necessary thing to do. "In order to advocate the rights of one group, one Cannot impede upon the rights of another, which is what you are suggesting." I made this very clear in my first post, knowing my opponent would most likely bring it up again. 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. "Lastly, what about moral and societal implications? A homosexual couple cannot naturally nurture or reproduce children." I would prefer that you provide proof from a reputable source that homosexual couples cannot "nurture" children. This is an outlandish argument to make. "Homosexual marriage is of immorality and breaks all the laws of nature." How exactly is the union of two consenting adults immoral? Furthermore, homosexuality does not break the laws of nature: http://en.wikipedia.org.... I'd like you to note that homosexual behavior is especially prevalent in primates and social bird species. One last point for you - I believe the Bible states that only humans can sin, because only humans have eternal souls. So when God made all the animals on the (4th day?), why did he also choose to make a portion of them homosexual, knowing they don't have souls and cannot in fact "sin"? "To discourage morality would be to encourage the downfall of humanity, step by step." My resolution would not "discourage" morality as it would in fact lessen discrimination. Therefore, the continued survival of marriage as a discriminatory legal system is in fact the "immoral" course of action. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: I directly refuted my opponents claims, including those for which he has no logical foundation or proof through evidence. In addition, several of my original contentions have gone unanswered in their entirety - including the Constitutionality of marriages themselves and the unequal benefits they provide.