Same sex unions are the equivalent of Heterosexual unions

"Our values would include the proper age for sexual activity, the number of partners involved, whether or not it is actually meant to reproduce a child, whether or not the partners are married etc." Yes, I presented the ideal natural progression of events within a heterosexual relationship, but nonetheless, it is natural and is the model relationship which has been the norm in America since our nation was founded. Recently, no fault divorce laws and other societal changes have assisted with breaking up traditional style families. Before divorce was a problem, this natural family unit served society quite well, did it not? Refer to the last round where I stated the purpose of the government's involvement in marriage. "Obviously, Con may attempt to say that these cultures are just wrong, maybe even evil; it would certainly fit in with his imperialist, ethnocentric paradigm." Why do you caricature my position? Definition of imperialism: "the extension of power or authority over others in the interests of domination." That is certainly not what I believe. I just believe that marriage should be well defined and serve the purpose of assisting unions which, in principle, can result in the procreation and birth of children. Marriage should support the natural family. It has nothing to do with dominating certain classes of people and no liberty is restricted.[1] Every American citizen who is engaged in a relationship which, in principle, can result in procreation is eligible to receive marriage benefits. "This is called contraception….. Con leaves this option out of his "natural" progression." For one thing, I do not support contraception. I support self control, abstinence, and natural family planning. That is a whole other discussion, so don't shift the subject. So heterosexuals sometimes use artificial means to prevent the natural act from reaching its completion which is the conception of a child. What does that have to do with this argument? The possibility for heterosexuals to frustrate their sexual act from fulfilling its purpose of creating life does not change the nature of heterosexual unions. "Some cultures value some sort of marital process... Con, should the government ensure that all marriages are between virgins, or at least a virgin bride? That's traditional European, Christian marriage." I am not sure that my opponent understands my argument. Purpose of the recognition of marriage by the government as I stated in round 3: "The government grants marriage benefits to couples in committed heterosexual relationships to assist them with the difficulties which come with raising children and also to encourage couples to maintain a stable relationship in which to conceive and raise their children." In other words, it is to encourage the natural progression timeline I outlined, which very well can and does happen in heterosexual relationships. You could say it is the story of our nation, since this natural progression I outlined has been the typical case in America for most of its history. It has worked quite well, hasn't it? Males and females have also worked together to raise children in many cultures throughout history, biological parents raising their children is nothing new. "The "union," or sexual relationship, between a man and a woman is cultural as all my points" The stability and permanence of the relationship is encouraged by our culture for the well being of children, but the sexual union is perfectly natural. If the sexual relationship itself is a cultural construct, who invented the male and female sex organs? "I want to now mess with this "natural" progression... " " > Child is born > Father bails> …" "…Man has sex with a minor> He goes to jail>… " Are these ideal cases? Of course not.[2] Refer back the reason I gave in round 3 and quoted in this page which shows the purpose of marriage. One reason is to encourage stable relationships and give couples incentive to stay together, so father won't bail. There are laws against having sex with minors, for good reason. "Father and mother (meth addicts) adopt their child to a homosexual couple" I discussed the issue of homosexual adoption in the previous round. You still have not presented a case to show the stand alone value of homosexual relationships, whereas I have already discussed the stand alone value of heterosexual relationships. I would like to have a debate based on the terms agreed to as presented in round 1 and the comment section. In the next round, please present a valid argument of some sort which clearly explains how homosexual unions are equal to heterosexual unions as a stand alone relationship. I showed how, on its own, a heterosexual relationship has natural value, yet you cannot show how a homosexual relationship has value without outside influences. "they live their own lives and no one else is hurt" If gay marriage is legalized, I would have to disagree with this point. There is already evidence that the legal recognition of gay marriage would affect free speech, religious liberty, and children. [3] [4] [5] There are many posts here if you want to learn more on the subject. http://www.nomblog.com... "I was arguing that homosexuals, as human beings, are not usually infertile. They can still get their sperm put into a surrogate mother, and lesbians can get sperm from a sperm bank, then both go home and have sex with whoever they want." They still rely on the heterosexual union of sperm and egg. What does this have to do with homosexual unions? "I said homosexual couples can provide a tolerant environment, which would likely make the child more tolerant and allow for the child to express feelings that may go against the grain of American culture." Again, you argue that the benefit of accepting homosexuality is the tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality. "The government never asks marriages they recognize if they will have children. If the government allows heterosexuals to marry without asking them to have children, then it is discrimination to ban homosexual marriage."" This point you make is wrong for two reasons. First, gay "marriages" are not banned. They simply are not legally equated with male-female marriage, for good reason. Nothing is stopping homosexuals from having relationships. Second, you appeal to exceptions to the norm, but as a rule, heterosexual sex results in children. In principle, a man can have children with a woman, correct? "The words 'in principle' mean relating to the definition of, not relating to particular circumstances. If an apple has a worm in it, the worm is not part of the definition of the apple. It doesn't change what the apple is in principle. Human beings reason by means of concepts and definitions. We also make laws based on definitions. If you don't know how to operate with respect for definitions, you can't make a law. An individual who is infertile does not change the definition of marriage in principle, because between a man and a woman in principle, procreation is always possible. It is that possibility that gave rise to the institution of marriage in the first place as a matter of law and government. When procreation is impossible as between two males or two females, you are not talking about something that is incidentally impossible. You are talking about something that is impossible in principle. If you say that that is a marriage, you are saying that marriage can be understood, in principle, apart from procreation.... When you start playing games in this way, you act as if the institution has no basis apart from your arbitrary whim." - Alan Keyes I extend my arguments made in previous rounds. Sources are in the comments section.