Same sex unions are the equivalent of Heterosexual unions

First, I will address Con's "natural" progression of a heterosexual relationship because this "progression" is the foundation of his argument. Second, I will address Con's objections to my first argument. Con says, "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" Sexual relationships are cultural constructs. Sex is natural, but our values towards sex are not. 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. Proper age would include cultures that impose, or value, specific ages. For example, girls are sometimes selected as mates after their first period (around 12) while boys have often had to pass some sort of rite of passage to become a mate. Some cultures such as the Aztecs, among others, created something of a third gender with more feminine traits (http://www.transgender.org...). This third gender, what we would call a transsexual woman, was usually used as "practice" for the boys who to become the warriors. 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. The number of partners involved in a sexual relationship is quite clear. I can imagine that many people in numerous cultures have sex with people they barely know, even if they are in a large group, essentially everyone having sex with everyone. That is usually frowned upon in the US, but it happens, nevertheless. Polygamy, and its opposite polyandry (multiple men and one woman), are practiced all over the world. Many people engage in sexual activity with the explicit intent not to have a child. This is called contraception. Sometimes when men do not want have a baby, they wear condoms on their pricks and have horrible sex because condoms suck. Con leaves this option out of his "natural" progression. Some cultures value some sort of marital process. Although premarital sex is traditionally frowned upon in the US, it is accepted and practiced by many worldwide including many Americans. This actually brings up another point. Con, should the government ensure that all marriages are between virgins, or at least a virgin bride? That's traditional European, Christian marriage. The "union," or sexual relationship, between a man and a woman is cultural as all my points demonstrate, and therefore not natural. One could come to these conclusions by simply reading some basic anthropology or sociology. I want to now mess with this "natural" progression. Man and Woman unite in sexual union > Woman becomes pregnant with child conceived through heterosexual union > Child is born > Father bails> Child matures and becomes independent because his mother raised him > Child, now an adult, meets member of the opposite sex and engages in sexual union > Go back to beginning and repeat Man has sex with a minor> He goes to jail>Woman becomes pregnant with child conceived through heterosexual union > Child is born >mother and her new boyfriend who is her age 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 Man and Woman unite in sexual union > Woman becomes pregnant with child conceived through heterosexual union > Child is born > Father and mother (meth addicts) adopt their child to a homosexual couple> 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 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 an independent gay man > Child, now an adult, meets member of the same sex and engages in sexual union > they live their own lives and no one else is hurt, and everyone who wants to have kids has kids, and the people who don' continue to pay taxes that go towards the schools for all the children. Finally, Con, you completely failed to address your desire to limit liberty. Even if a "union" between a man and woman was natural (I have show it isn't), you would have to give reasons to limit liberty. There has to be some sort of threat towards the rights of others. Before I end, however, I want to address Con's objections. "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." and "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." Well, I never mentioned adoption or IVF, and you apparently did not get my argument since you completely failed to correctly address it. 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. Moreover, I didn't even come close to mentioning adoption, so I have no idea where you got that one. Also, many homosexuals take their child raising seriously, so yes, reproduction is important to many homosexual relationships. Even if that was not the case, many heterosexual "unions" do not conclude with a child (contraception), many heterosexual couples use IVF and raise healthy families, or build families through adoption. You also wrongly accuse me of circular reasoning ("Homosexuality should be tolerated because it should be tolerated? No one is intolerant of homosexuality anyway, it isn't banned.") I never made that argument. 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. This is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says it is. You also say, "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." This is not true. 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. If the government allows heterosexuals to marry without asking them to have children, then it is discrimination to ban homosexual marriage. I have also shown that homosexual couple can have children. They can, plain and simple! It may not be through means you agree with, but many people including heterosexuals (who can marry anyone they want) use these methods (sperm banks, IVF, adoption) to make a family.