Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest.

1) PRO's section "On claims of bald assertion" expands on concepts I have already agreed are stated assumptions for the debate (see my comment in regards to the meaning of "assumption"). Currently I see no reason to disagree with his expansions, although I will say again that I simply do not find discussion of any of it pertinent to the argument at hand, whether or not "Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest." PRO did not make any connections in that entire section to the argument.2) In PRO's section "Con's declarations on the nature of government" PRO makes the bald assertion that Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson are not credible sources when used to discuss government. This in my opinion is a preposterous claim, and I see no reason whatsoever to agree to such an assertion. I challenge PRO to spend as much time as he would like on attempting to disprove Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson as authorities on government, and I am almost certain such an attempt will take up far more time and space than allowed by this debate format.I will reaffirm that "If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion."PRO also states that "It is no small thing to note that from my previous statement, particularly against such spurious claims, "that which the other may not do is that which the self may prevent from being done, and that which the self would prevent from being done to self is also that which the self ought prevent from being done to others, as equals must be treated equally"; it is not within the freedom of any person to just shirk their responsibilities." PRO completely disregards his stances on natural evil and an imperfect world when making these assumptions at this juncture. Natural evil in an imperfect world will interfere with what OUGHT to be done. PRO also states that "there must be some "evil" present for it to be considered a "necessary evil", and nothing CON has said so far actually supports this claim." He is correct, because I did not have to -- PRO stated in round #2 that "there are certain problems of natural evil: people die, people have emotions..." PRO is contradicting himself here and is getting lost in his own voluminous maze of esoteric, philosophical, and irrelevant material. THERE IS NATURAL EVIL IN THE NATURAL WORLD. This makes government a necessary evil, as already quoted by Thomas Paine. The government is not a pure good...there is no pure good in an imperfect world.3) In PRO's section "The social effects of domestic partnership", he states that "it follows that the government should want as much domestic partnership as it can bring about." I disagree. It follows that the people should want as much domestic partnership as possible. Whether or not the coercion inherent in government action is necessary to do this has already been refuted. It is in people's best interests to cohabitate and seek companionship, and they will do so anyway through private sector solutions, as I have already discussed in detail in round #2, and which PRO up to this point has not contested.PRO asks "IF there existed some injection which utterly removed a person's need to eat and their hunger and harmed them in no way, would it not be within the government's interest to subsidize and encourage its citizens to choose such a course of action?" My answer is familiar and simple - If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion. Whenever a government "subsidizes" or "encourages" an activity, it must first encode the action into law. Failure to comply with this law by any of its citizens authorizes the government to enforce the law via military or police action.For example, I'm certain that if we can develop an energy source that was extremely cheap and extremely clean, the people would want such an energy source. However, the private sector can research and develop this source of energy without the implied coercion of the government edict. One need only mention Solyndra to see how disastrous high minded, monolithic government action can become. [1]4) In PRO's section "On privatization", PRO claims that private actors will require government intervention in order to cohabitate and seek companionship. His argument lies in the simple assertion that it is happening now, so it must be necessary. Since PRO seems a bit bashful about being direct, I will do it for him, and interpret that when he talks about "people fighting specifically for government regulated and recognized domestic partnership contracts" he is talking about gay rights activists fighting for recognition of their domestic partnerships. Well, all I will say to this is that yes, I am aware of gay rights activists' struggles. However, the (real) topic of the debate is whether or not they should be struggling in the first place. PRO has offered absolutely no justification for their struggles, other than to say that because they are occurring, they must be just. I await PRO to actually make a valid argument here.PRO also states that "the govermnent DOESN'T have any business forcing an activity which by all rights in such contracts would be voluntary. However, the government does have business encouraging it to take place. " Again, PRO fails to consider that "whenever a government "subsidizes" or "encourages" an activity, it must first encode the action into law. Failure to comply with this law by any of its citizens authorizes the government to enforce the law via military or police action."He then talks about drunk driving and safe sex, and how the government does rightly intervene in these two matters. However, there is a clear government need for intervention here, as there are clear and present dangers to the security, indeed the very lives of citizens if the government does not act. Drunk driving endangers not only the driver, but any unfortunate soul that found him or herself in harm's way. Unprotected sex transmits STDs, which could become epidemics in today's sexually liberated society. PRO then states that "a domestic partnership contract with the government...does not in any way dictate action by persons. It dictates the levying of a TAX, one which is far smaller than the societal benefit, which government is otherwise authorized and even required to seek."1) Regarding any taxes, taxes are collected via authorization from the tax code, a government edict. "If a citizen does not conform to government edicts, the government has full authority to force the compliance of this individual by utilizing its military and police force. Each and every government edict must be weighed against this implied coercion." 2) I challenge PRO to quantify the social benefit versus the tax levied, because I simply am not convinced this is the case. The burden of proof is on PRO, as he stated in round #1.I applaud PRO's well crafted argument, but there are many irrelevancies that I don't think need to be repeatedly addressed. I also encourage him to be more forthright regarding the issue at hand: are sanctioned domestic partnership contracts a legitimate government interest? I feel that 95% of this debate is almost wholly irrelevant to this question and instead is about what I consider to be irrelevant esoteric details.At this juncture, I am simply unconvinced that the heavy hand of the government is at all required in this matter. PRO has spent almost all of his time and space arguing other details. The burden of proof is on PRO to actually state his case.[1] http://abcnews.go.com...;