Same sex unions are the equivalent of Heterosexual unions

In Pro's response, right away he went off the topic of the debate. I clearly stated before the debate that Gay adoption and IVF were not being discussed, but rather, the value of homosexual and heterosexual relationships and whether these relationships are equal. All the points I made in my opening are naturally linked to a heterosexual relationship. Yes, homosexuals can reproduce, but only if they choose to participate in a heterosexual union. Even IVF requires a heterosexual union of sperm and egg. The reproduction has nothing to do with the homosexual relationship. Since homosexual unions are irrelevant to adoption and IVF, the argument that homosexuals can reproduce fails. In pro's second paragraph, he states "Homosexual couples can also stay together after the birth of a child to raise it to the "benefit" of society." Again, this argument is irrelevant to this debate. I discuss the birth and nurture of children in my post, because these events are a natural part of a heterosexual relationship. (See the end of this post.) Since the birth and nurture of children are part of a natural progression of events in a heterosexual relationship, children are highly relevant when discussing them as a result of heterosexual relationships. Birth and nurture of children are irrelevant when applied to homosexuality, because the birth and nurture of children has nothing to do with homosexuality. Pro's opening arguments do nothing to show how homosexuality is good for either nature or society. All points I made in my opening post are directly the result of heterosexuality. Pro then asks what it means to benefit society. To that I reply: to benefit society is to provide for the overall good of society. The first way heterosexuality benefits society through procreation by ensuring that there will be a society in the future. Without procreation, there is no future society. Society would die off as soon as the currently living generation dies. You make the argument that homosexuals can raise children as well as heterosexuals. That argument fails for two reasons. First, raising children doesn't apply to homosexual relationships as it does to heterosexual relationships. As I said before, raising children is just part of the natural progression of events in a heterosexual relationship. How are children linked to a homosexual relationship? Sure, homosexuals can adopt, but that has nothing to do with this debate. This is because the adoption is not linked in any way to homosexual relationships. Would a brother and sister jointly begin caring for a young child form a marriage? A mother and a son? Three brothers? The ability to adopt is irrelevant to determining whether the child's caregivers are married. What matters is the relationship itself, so that is what this debate is about. Even in adoption, is a homosexual relationship really equal to a heterosexual relationship? The second source I posted in round 2 is not about sexism as my opponent stated. The link in the second source is about the inherent psychological differences between men and women, not roles that can be learned or unlearned as you state. Here is a quote from the first paragraph of source 2: "As the goal of equality between men and women now grows closer we are also losing our awareness of important differences. In some circles of society, politically correct thinking is obliterating important discussion as well as our awareness of the similarities and differences between men and women. The vision of equality between the sexes has narrowed the possibilities for discovery of what truly exists within a man and within a woman. " I use the link from source two to support the points made in source three by demonstrating that men and women are different psychologically. From source three: "Mothers and Fathers Play Differently Fathers tend to play with, and mothers tend to care for, children….Fathers encourage competition; mothers encourage equity. One style encourages independence while the other encourages security….Both provide security and confidence in their own ways by communicating love and physical intimacy. Fathers Push Limits; Mothers Encourage Security Either of these parenting styles by themselves can be unhealthy. One can tend toward encouraging risk without consideration of consequences. The other tends to avoid risk, which can fail to build independence, confidence and progress. Joined together, they keep each other in balance and help children remain safe while expanding their experiences and confidence." What good for a child is having a second father in place of a mother? The fathers don't balance each other. They only provide children with the strengths of a male, but neither of the men can adequately fill the role of a mother. [1] This is similar to having two left hands as opposed to a left and right hand. Are not two halves which form one whole better than having two halves which still equal one half of a whole? A father cannot possibly replace a mother and a mother cannot replace a father due to inherent differences between the sexes. The uniqueness of each sex is not the result of culturally defined roles that are learned and unlearned. [2] Later in your post you state: "Moreover, I can see benefits that same-sex couples can provide: they can provide a child with a healthy environment" Is a home lacking a mother or father really as healthy for a child's development as home with both a mother and father? "they can demonstrate the unnaturalness of what we may consider the monogamous heterosexual "union," This does not make sense. A heterosexual union is perfectly natural. There is no life, no future without the heterosexual union. Nothing results from a homosexual relationship. You only use circular reasoning in the paragraph I quote from below. Homosexuality should be tolerated because it should be tolerated? No one is intolerant of homosexuality anyway, it isn't banned. "Lastly, they can provide a tolerant and diverse environment...." "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"." The heterosexual union derives meaning from its own nature, not government recognition. See the timeline below. I showed how a heterosexual relationship still has meaning without being called a marriage by the government. You say that marriage laws discriminate against certain classes of people. How so? 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 children. Anyone who chooses to participate in such a relationship is eligible to receive these benefits. Homosexuals are not discriminated against because they are not barred from marrying. They just prefer not to marry a member of the opposite sex. Natural progression of a heterosexual relationship: Man and Woman unite in sexual union > Woman becomes pregnant with child conceived through heterosexual union > Child is born > Father and mother work together to raise child > Child matures and becomes independent > Child, now an adult, meets member of the opposite sex and engages in sexual union > Go back to beginning and repeat Homosexual relationship: Man and man engage in sexual play > what happens next? Woman and woman engage in sexual play > what happens next? Adoption and IVF will not be discussed any further in this debate. At this point, you have not even addressed the topic of the debate. sources: [1] http://www.narth.com... [2]http://www.oregoncounseling.org...