Same sex unions are the equivalent of Heterosexual unions

Con, you have done nothing to address any of my points that clearly show the unnaturalness, the cultural construct of sexual relationships, or "union." You keep coming back and just saying the "union" is natural without any logical support. Moreover, I have shown the standalone value of homosexual relationships. I argued that they could provide a healthy environment, meaning they can provide the essentials and the luxuries. You fired back with pretty much a question if whether they could do this which had no further logical analysis, answer to your question, or any attempt to ask me to answer the question. I argued homosexuals can provide a child with an open environment, and therefore the child would more likely be more tolerant. You fired back with a false accusation of circular reasoning, then you misconstrued my argument. I argued that accepting different relationships can allow children who feel pressures from society to express themselves more openly. You fired back with your own misunderstanding and completely missed the actual argument. You have, therefore, failed to address any of these "benefits" that homosexual relationships can provide. "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." This is not true and I have shown why it is not. Heterosexual couples can marry and never have kids. The government never asks marriages they recognize if they will have children. Moreover, the government gives benefits per child, depending if the family needs it. You have again filed to correctly address another argument. It seems that you completely disregard anything I say, misconstrue, misinterpret, or completely miss my arguments, then throw them out as irrelevant to the subject. Moreover, my caricature is correct. You are ethnocentric because you believe that your idea of a sexual relationship is "natural" (I have shown it is not, and you have failed to address any of my points), and you are imperialist because you seek to limit liberty based on your cultural understanding. That is domination. You failed to answer any of the questions I asked about the government's recognition of a sexual relationship. First, are the interests of the individual completely separate from those of society? Second, how are we to measure the "benefits" of a relationship? Monetarily, socially, psychologically etc.? Thirdly, should the government have the authority to define a relationship and place values upon them? Should the government recognize categories such as unions and marriages based on the philosophical perspectives of any amount of people regardless of the size of the majority? Finally, but not the absolute last point that could be made, is this not a form of discrimination? The only one you attempted to answer was the one on discrimination, and you failed to address it properly. You seemed to believe that if a "person" (ie homosexual) is not banned then there is no discrimination. That is not discrimination. That might be closer to segregation, or the legal separation of different groups. Discrimination is to see differences among objects and to restrict or deny someone something based on values among those objects. No one could say that homosexuals are not discriminated against in the US. They just received the right to serve openly in the military, and they cannot even marry who they want and expect the government to stay out of their lives. "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...; Okay, I guess if you call Fox News and the National Organization for Marriage evidence. I might think that a scientifically peer reviewed article would be better. You could have looked for one in a legal journal or any other humanities-based or social science-based journal. I don't think you will find an article that supports what you advocate, but you could look. "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." This will be my last point made in this argument. Again, I have shown that the "union" is not natural; that is, what we do with and how we value our sex organs are completely cultural, therefore, not natural. You have done nothing to dispute this (if you do, stick to natural or social science, not blogs!). For example, Jack Bonsor critiques the "objective disorder" found within the discourse of the Catholic Church towards homosexuality and concludes that there is scientific evidence that should cause us to reconsider this notion. Moreover, I have shown various ways in which other cultures value sexual relationships, and therefore propagate the species in ways that do not include our concept of the heterosexual "union," or sexual relationship. For instance, some cultures have multiple partners, others use what we would call transgendered women for "practice," and many cultures have different ways in which they raise children. Again, sex is natural, but how we value sex and actually engage in sex is cultural. What Con calls the heterosexual "union" is a cultural construct (ie one man has sex with one woman and both raise a child). Propagation only requires the fertilization of an egg by a sperm, which is not the same as a "union." This can be achieved through many means including an all-out orgy, rape, sexual promiscuity, artificial insemination, or sexual relations among multiple partners. All of these examples could be theoretically institutionalized. I have also shown that homosexuals can conceive children. It does not matter if they need aid because heterosexual couples us aid without the government getting in their business. Bonsor, Jack A. "Homosexual orientation and anthropology: reflections on the category 'objective disorder.'." Theological Studies 59.n1 (March 1998): 60(14). Academic OneFile. Gale. University of Washington. 10 June 2011 (sorry the source is not online for free, so go to a library and see if they have Academic OneFile).