Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest.

1) argument from authority. As I said before, and as is the core of the fallacy, argument from authority is not a valid form of argument without REASONS to back it up. CON must either provide reasons which support the assertion or concede the point2) CON continues to reassert a disproved premise that the existence of an edict made by a government constitutes authority to force compliance. This is not true; only edicts made by government which constitute demonstrable responsibility or defensible definition of classes of freedom and non-freedom are authorized for enforcement, hence the discussion of A Priori authority of government. No man has any right to shirk these responsibilities, nor do that which they have no authority of freedom to do, and thus government enforcing ANY such edict is allowed and encouraged; no "balancing" is therefore necessary. Either it's right, and it should be done, or it is not, and it should not be done. Secondly, not all edicts made by government imply coercion of ANY sort, in particular contracts such as domestic partnership contracts. There is nothing "semantic" about it; there's no coercion of any sort involved here. People are engaging in government checked and regulated contracts of their own free will."[A]ny constructs or theories such flawed individuals would create would themselves be subject to this evil." is itself a spurious and invalid argument, therefore it cannot provide support to any of CON's arguments; while it very clearly speaks against his argument from authority, this falls prey to the genetic fallacy. Just because an imperfect person says some thing does not necessarily make the thing itself incorrect or imperfect; the existence of a great many mathematical proofs, perfect in their validity, is proof that imperfect creatures can have a perfect understanding of a concept. CON's points:1) This premise upon which this is built fails under (1) above; CON must concede this point.2) CON argues, incorrectly, that this discussion is about a "private good", when it is not; it is clearly about a public good, namely reducing the sum total of effort necessary to maintain society, and thereby increasing the common freedom to be. It is about whether government participation, regulation, or encouragement of some form of contract is within the PUBLIC interest; see (5) below. 3) CON argues from a straw man; I would hope that it is clear that I am talking about individuals who are engaging in MARRIAGES, though I am not about to argue against also allowing other arrangements. Married soldiers are generally afforded privileges such as off-base housing, married housing, separation pay, spouse insurance, survivor benefits, etc.. Without formal recognition of these relationships, the soldier can and often does find life to be particularly more complicated and stressful, a situation which can severely decrease a soldier's individual readiness and mental health. We recognize the need of people to be close to one another in this way, and the only way for it to become possible as an alternative to barracks life is a federal recognition of constructs of domestic partnership.Further, there are OTHER human needs which CANNOT be satisfied by purely "private" contract, such as provision of immigration status, guarantee of health care benefits (if there is no regulation, any given provider through a workplace may deny coverage for some class of domestic partnership they find 'distasteful', especially in situations where an employee is unable to find other employment or insurance options which satisfy their needs), support for partner-as-domestic-dependant, partner protection in a courtroom, and other such concessions our society recognizes are beneficial and which are only possible through government involvement.4) "Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government intervention." CON makes a claim here, and further is accusing me of putting words in his mouth; I am not, and this is in fact a red herring. I am indicating that this specific claim is false. He has made a badly assembled claim that private actors (do?) see it in their best interests to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their living arrangements without government intervention. This claim is A. I have clearly shown that in reality, Some private actors see it in their best interest to cohabitate and allow, request, or demand of government to intervene on the terms and living arrangements of that cohabitation. While this not strictly a reversal of CON's premise, it IS clearly a negation of it. Any of CON's arguments that flow from this premise is invalid through faulty premise.5) In order to evaluate CON's claim here, that reducing consumption for a couple does not itself benefit all of society, it may be best to simplify the problem. Imagine that all heat comes from coal. Imagine for a moment that each person living on their own requires 10 pieces of coal to heat their house, and couples between them only need 6 apiece, for a total of 12 pieces of coal. If a society of 100 people naturally has a cohabitation rate of 60%, this means that the society consumes 760 pieces of coal; 760 pieces of coal worth of effort must be applied annually to keep every person alive and warm. If, as an incentive to cohabitate, the government offers to chip in 2 pieces of coal to every person that cohabitates and increases cohabitation by 10%, that entire society will only require 720 pieces of coal, reducing the collective effort necessary to heat the houses of the population by 40 pieces of coal. In order to offer this incentive, the government must collect .7 pieces of coal from every person, on average. However, the society as a whole still must only do 720 pieces of coal worth of work. This simplified society is therefore better off AS A WHOLE because the people in it do not need to do quite so much work to stay warm; fewer people must work in the coal mine, and there is more time for pursuits like education, innovation, etc.. This is assuming a tax is even the best incentive; token benefits, or education may work too.So to reiterate MY claims1) Society as a whole (GOVERNMENT) has a natural ethical responsibility to produce laws that codify what is right and wrong, do works which reduce the effects of evil, and collect taxes to fund those works. (ACCEPTED BY CON)2) Domestic partnerships reduce the effects of natural evil (as per 5 above, ACCEPTED BY CON)3) Therefore government has a responsibility to encourage Domestic Partnerships through works, and therefore collect taxes to fund that work (if taxes are even necessary to encourage that work; they may not be!)CON has argued counterclaims, to reiterate1) "Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government intervention." DISPROVEN2) "The government has no business forcing a natural biological function such as the need for companionship." RED HERRING3) "There is no contract signed between soldiers of a military unit to cohabitate - they do because they are ordered to do so." DISPROVEN, STRAW MAN4) A corporation is not an individual for the purposes of this debate. RED HERRING5) 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." ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, DISPROVEN6) Government "carrots" exist only because of taxes paid by the citizenry. RED HERRINGThe above statements by con, have ALL been established as fallacious, or otherwise unconnected to the debate;In short, All of CON's arguments have been addressed, and found wanting. May the most well-reasoned argument win.