Same sex unions are the equivalent of Heterosexual unions

Thanks for the debate. First, I will shortly address my opponent's arguments, then I will describe away in which societal "benefits" can be found within a homosexual relationship. Con opens with the assumptions that the procreation of our species relies upon the monogamous heterosexual "union," and that those relationships have no "equal." Homosexuals can also reproduce, obviously, through different means; however, this is the point: they can still reproduce. Moreover, the health of the child should not be doubted as homosexuals can provide a healthy environment both physical and mental for the child. Much of what constitutes our psyche is not based on who our parents are, but in what environment we are raised. I know the science isn't complete on the matter of nature vs. nurture, but there is enough to support my claim. Homosexual couples can also stay together after the birth of a child to raise it to the "benefit" of society. This brings me to my next point. Con repeatedly uses phrases like "benefit" and "equal" when referring to heterosexual "unions." What does it mean to benefit society? Not to go to prison? To live in a home, preferably one that the inhabitant owns? To get good grades? You get my point. The list can go on forever. There is no intrinsic value to anything that could be put on that list, and therefore there is nothing that is innately found within a heterosexual "union" that "benefits" society. As a society, we construct those values through our daily interactions and negotiations. Con essentially constructs heterosexual "unions" as the norm and concludes thereby that any other relationship no longer deserves legal recognition. Con states that "Each sex has unique strengths and weaknesses. [2] [sic] When working together, the male and female parents complement each other to give their child a well rounded upbringing. [3] [sic]" There are problems with his sources, however. His second source addresses sexism, but it also ignores more contemporary sexism and attaches "true" essence to gender. Gender roles are socially and culturally constructed (http://www.nomas.org...); therefore, they have no intrinsic value. Men (as well as women) can unlearn these roles, at times to their benefit (http://www.nomas.org...). The only thing that is natural is sex, that is, a male has a penis and a female has a vagina. Men and women (gender) are roles that people act out. A similar critique can be made in regard to his third source: there is no intrinsic value in gender, and therefore no intrinsic value in the role of a mother and a father. Con's argument that same-sex relationships do not provide "equal" benefits as heterosexual relationships is based completely on his lack of knowledge, or his lack of experience. How are we to gauge "equality" among benefits? I propose not that we decide which one is better, but that we only recognize the complexities of society, the complexity and the plurality of what constitutes a sexual relationship. By shutting out these complexities, we only construct a false dichotomy, opposing binaries that actually harm all men along with the others who are placed in the devalued half of that binary (women, trans-gendered, gay men, and lesbians). Moreover, I can see benefits that same-sex couples can provide: they can provide a child with a healthy environment; they can help their children negotiate with society's expectations; they can demonstrate the unnaturalness of what we may consider the monogamous heterosexual "union," thereby complicating a society that is truly plural and allowing children who feel different to openly express themselves; Lastly, they can provide a tolerant and diverse environment. Children who grow up in a diverse environment will be less likely to be intolerant and more likely to be open-minded, and therefore, more critical of social norms and to their own condition. Additionally, tolerance is shown to be a driving force in attracting people to entire cities and regions, which increases the economic value of a region (http://www.urban.org...). Tolerance also requires that people accept pluralities, complexities, perspectives they may not understand. Con's assessment of sexual relationships completely diminishes any of the benefits gained from a diverse environment, an environment based on trust and acceptance. Finally, Con concludes that we may be able to judge whether or not the government should recognize a relationship based on that relationship's "utility". There are numerous fundamental problems with this on several philosophical levels. First, are the interests of the individual completely separate from those of society? Second, how are we to measure the "benefits" of a relationship? Monetarily, socially, psychologically etc.? Thirdly, should the government have the authority to define a relationship and place values upon them? Should the government recognize categories such as unions and marriages based on the philosophical perspectives of any amount of people regardless of the size of the majority? Finally, but not the absolute last point that could be made, is this not a form of discrimination? I believe it is. The government is offering benefits to one group while denying those benefits to others based on its philosophical understanding of a union and a marriage. Moreover, the government is valuing one section of the citizenry over another. Con must answer these questions because he seeks to restrict liberty, and there must be ample reason to restrict liberty. That is why we have a process of law making and a system of checks and balances. We ensure that liberty is limited to a justifiable degree, but we also make sure that any restrictions we implement can be taken away. Restrictions can be taken away because their reasoning is not sufficient; therefore, I contend there are no sufficient reasons to restrict marriage to any consenting adults, regardless if they want to marry the same sex or if they want to marry multiple partners.