Same sex unions are the equivalent of Heterosexual unions

Con, this entire debate you have used completely ambiguous words such as "union" to describe the sexual relationship of two people and the apparent fertilization of an egg. You have naturalized this term in the hopes to make your own perspective more likely. If it is natural, we cannot change it. I have shown this is not the case several times, and you have not once addressed the cultural construction of sexual relations among humans. There is nothing natural about your "natural"progression model. Any other scenario that defies your "natural" "union" can be inserted. For instance, we could institutionalize rape and the human race would succeed in procreating itself. In short, the cycle would continue; it wouldn't be fun, but it would continue. 1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). I have shown, and you have not disputed, that this"union" (1 man and 1 woman, working together) is not the only means in which humans can procreate. Humans can and have propagated in different ways (1 man and many women, 1 woman and many men, Trans gendered have been used for various purposes as well). 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. This is not true as I have explained above, and Con has failed to dispute over and over again. There is nothing natural or inherently significant about this "union." 3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. This is an assumption and is based upon certain perspectives. "special value" to whom? Why do these "special" people deserve recognition and sanction? The government never asks married couples if they will have children. Procreation, therefore, has nothing to do with whether or not the government recognizes relationships. 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. Nothing happens to heterosexual unions or marriages if gays can marry. Everything for heterosexuals will stay exactly the same. The questionable sources used by Con have really nothing to do with gay marriage or gay sexual relationships. Those are legal matters that can be solved if they are indeed true. 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. Like I said before, heterosexuals will still get to marry and nothing else will change. Where's the injustice? 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust. This conclusion does not follow. I have also shown why each premise is wrong. Con's argument rests on his assumption that the only value in a sexual relationship is whether or not it bears children. I don't plan on having children, so does that mean my heterosexual relationship is meaningless to all society? No! Most people need to work and live together just to make ends meet. Let me outline some more substantial, tangible "benefits" to society that either people who do not plan on having children, or homosexuals can provide. 1) economic: 2 people living together means that their necessities can be paid for more easily. They can, therefore, put more money towards consuming goods, bolstering the economy. 2) Education: 2 people living together can more easily afford education, and benefits that married couples (regardless if they choose to have a baby) get could help homosexual couples as well. 3) Social well being: Any time a large portion of society is devalued or discriminated against, society becomes less stable because of it. 4) As my other source showed (http://www.urban.org...) people are attracted to tolerant environments and those areas grow economically because of it. An environment that prefers one sexual relationship over another is not a tolerant environment and not an environment that will attract diverse groups of people. This should be sufficient to prove my point. I conclude that relationships have more value than only procreation. Other societies have carried out procreation in various ways where roles change and, even in some instances, genders change. In short, the values we place on sex are not natural, therefore, there is nothing natural about 1 man and 1 woman working together to raise a child. I have also raised the question whether or not the government has the authority to value a relationship based on whether that relationship bears children. The government is already silent on that matter, so I recommend we keep it that way. Moreover, Con has failed to provide a sufficient reason to limit liberty (again, his sources addressed legal matters separate from gay marriage and can be solved through legal means if they are indeed true). Con acts as if heterosexual relationships will be threatened by gay marriage. That is completely illogical fear. Heterosexual relationships whether they are between two partners or many will be safe. The only thing that will change is that society will recognize the complexities and the pluralities that exist within the human condition.