Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest.

Since PRO is now basically playing a semantics war,1) I will simply assert that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine are experts on governance, particularly governance as defined by the US Constitution.2) I will reassert 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."I will also assert that PRO's statement, "within the function and existence of government, itself being in the best of real cases a perfect implementation of ethical considerations as per (1), there is no evil present there," is wholly false, as in a world with natural evil, where the actors in the world are themselves subject to this evil, that any constructs or theories such flawed individuals would create would themselves be subject to this evil. It thus follows that the government being "in the best of cases a pure implementation of the collective responsibilities of society" is a fallacy to which my opponent subscribes, as society is impure, thus an implementation of such a society's responsibilities would also be impure.There has to be a starting point for the discussion. There have to be some basic assumptions as to what is considered valid material. I respectfully draw the line here.I will leave it to the voters to ascertain whether or not these assertions are valid, and whether or not they add or detract in any meaningful fashion the pertinent discussion at hand. I also ask that you weigh this against PRO's voluminous philosophical ramblings.I was very tempted to just pull out a fallibility argument, but decided to actually see if PRO had some points for me to refute.Now onto the actual debate:1) PRO also asserts that "CON claims that government has authority to FORCE some outcome that it view is within the public good; however...THERE ARE OTHER CLEAR OPTIONS, and in some cases it is clearly not the case that the government has such an authority to force a particular state. This is the difference between a "stick" and a "carrot"." I respond that Government "carrots" exist only because of taxes paid by the citizenry. Taxes are collected via authorization from the tax code, a government edict. Recall 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." 2) Pro states that "CON seems to fall into some mythical thinking that private interests are always acting in the public good; private interests are driven by AMORAL market factors." This discussion is not about private versus public good. It is a discussion about whether or not sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest. It is a discussion about whether or not sanctioning a specific private good is a legitimate government interest.3) PRO has made an interesting assertion, that military troops require a "sanctioned domestic partnership contract" and that such a contract is a legitimate government interest.However, this is not a decision that troops make. It is a decision made for them by their commanders. There is no contract signed between soldiers of a military unit to cohabitate - they do because they are ordered to do so. The reasons may indeed be to provide "a highly structured environment...necessary to the fulfillment of the mission," but it is not a decision left to the soldiers. In this sense, it does NOT fall under PRO's definition of a "Domestic Partnership Contract":"any contract by which two private individuals agree to share expenses and pool resources in a domestic setting."Therefore, this specific case is invalid and does not meet the requirements for the argument, as there is no contract for cohabitation between soldiers.4) PRO states "Since private actors DO NOT see it in their best interests to do so, this statement is clearly invalid. He said A. I provided a real example of NOT A." This is a strawman argument. I never stated the first sentence. I am clear in stating that "Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government intervention." At this point I believe PRO is putting words into my mouth. If PRO is attempting to link his otherwise wholly irrelevant Monsanto argument to this point, Monsanto to my knowledge is not looking to cohabitate or seek companionship with anyone. Although US law may recognize a corporation as an individual, I will simply contend that a corporation is not an individual for the purposes of this debate, it does not look to cohabitate, nor does it "have a biological drive to find mates and keep them close." This is a completely irresponsible line of thinking from PRO.5) PRO states that "Further, CON has already accepted and conceded that "In [a couple's] lack of consumption, those resources [that they do not consume in their continued activity] remain available for society." He is correct in that I made this concession previously. I will now correct myself here by stating that "In [a couple's] lack of consumption, those resources [that they do not consume in their continued activity] remain available for the couple," and not for society. "A penny saved is a penny earned", not "a penny saved is a penny earned for the government". I missed this detail and I apologize for it. I hope readers as well as PRO will be able to adjust to this turn of events and understand how easy it is to miss some of PRO's more esoteric assumptions.To review, at this point of the debate: 1) Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government intervention2) The government has no business forcing a natural biological function such as the need for companionship. 3) There is no contract signed between soldiers of a military unit to cohabitate - they do because they are ordered to do so.4) A corporation is not an individual for the purposes of this debate.5) 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." 6) Government "carrots" exist only because of taxes paid by the citizenry. These statements have served to disprove any assertions PRO has attempted to make that "sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest."I am still left wondering when we will discuss gay marriage or gay rights, instead of soldier's rights, or cohabitation and companionship, or Monsanto.I will leave it up to PRO whether or not he wants the final round to be reserved for closing comments only.