Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest.

This resolution is one which cuts to the very core of "Civil Unions", "Gay Marriage" and other modelings of the domestic partnerships, ostensibly seeking an answer as to whether the government OUGHT be involved in them at all. This will, however, be my first online debate, and my first formal debate in earnest. Definitions: Sanctioned: to be encouraged through offering of benefits Domestic Partnership Contract: any contract by which two private individuals agree to share expenses and pool resources in a domestic setting. Legitimate Government Interest: This is really the meat and potatoes of what we will be debating/discussing; as such, it is by definition open to debate. Rules: The first round will be reserved for acceptance only. Second, any argument made without a clear claim, data, and warrant will be invalid until the missing portions of the argument are provided. However, see the final rule: If you can identify a warrant, it is your responsibility to do so as a polite individual with respect for the truth rather than semantics. While the inability to provide such a warrant DOES reflect badly on the person in their abilities to debate, it ought not reflect badly on the argument itself. However an absence of data declares an argument as a bald assertion and such a situation would necessarily reflect badly on both the argument AND the person arguing. Third, logical argumentation from first principles may be treated as "data", provided there is a warrant for such an argument to come back to the claim, as the authority for government and the appropriateness of law is a primary subject of philosophy, metaphysics, and game theory. Fourth, the "first principles" shall be accepted by "con" as at least the following: 1) That the universe exists 2) That knowledge exists 3) That predictive models have value, in a way non-predictive models do not 4) That two things OUGHT be treated equally, insofar as they lack relevant difference These are axioms, and assumptions that must be accepted at the start; also included are the axioms of math, logic, etc.. To clarify, (2) does not assume that there cannot be doubt in some thing's actual reality, or in some analysis, or in a prediction; it only assumes that certain models CAN be predictive, and that certain things DO happen, and that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that it is an accurate telling. Fifth, I accept that I have the burden of proof in this debate, and that this is wholly positive claim. Sixth, this debate is NOT as to whether some particular class ought be or not be privy to the benefits of such a contract, nor to declare what the exact benefits of such a contract ought be or not be, or even what such a contract ought be called, nor is it about if various types should be distinguished by various names. It is merely to ascertain whether or not the government has business being involved with encouraging such a class of contracts through the provision of benefits to those that engage in them. Seventh, any provision of data requires an accurate personal summation of the PRIMARY data. If you cannot accurately assimilate and re-create the idea of your reference, then you have no business trying to use it to bolster your claims. Finally, and most importantly, this debate is not to be a forum for "sneaky ****er"ism. Technicalities and semantics are to be avoided or corrected when noticed, not just left in place or exploited; if there is a way a particular argument DOES work and you can identify that way, but instead you attack it simply because that is not the exact way it was presented or because you do not wish to acknowledge something that you do not like, then you are a "sneaky ****er". I understand that this is not generally the way most debates take place, however it IS how THIS ONE will take place. The purpose of this debate is to explore which side is ACTUALLY right, not to determine who is the best at arguing.