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." That is not true. "Moreover, I have shown the standalone value of homosexual relationships." No, you haven't. Unless you show how homosexual relationships even have meaning without assistance from sperm banks, adoption, IVF etc, you have not done so. If you would like to address the stand alone value of homosexual relationships, fill in the blank. As I already said, even a pregnancy which results from a sperm bank requires a heterosexual union to reach completion, the union of the male sperm with the female egg. Man and man engage in union> (fill in) If you were doing to colonize a planet such as Mars, but could only send two people to begin the colony, would you send a male and a female or two members of the same sex? The male and female could produce offspring, and yes, it sounds odd, but theoretically, the offspring of the individual male and female couple could multiply. Whether that would cause genetic issues is debatable, then we would get into a discussion of Adam and Eve vs. evolution. My point is that it is theoretically possible for Mars to become filled with people using no other means than sending one male and one female to the planet, who have offspring, the offspring multiply then the offspring's offspring multiply etc. etc. Cultural construct is not a prerequisite for two biogical parents to raise their children as heterosexual relations are for homosexuals to raise children. This helps to demonstrate the stand alone value of the male-female relationship, and proves the truth behind my natural progression timeline. What would happen if you sent nothing other than two men or two women to the hypothetical new world? Fill in the blank to find out Man and man arrive on planet with no assistance > What happens? Woman and woman arrive on planet with no assistance > what happens? "I argued that accepting different relationships can allow children who feel pressures from society to express themselves more openly." This proves nothing about the value of homosexuality. The same can be said for any counter cultural lifestyle. "Heterosexual couples can marry and never have kids" Refer to the end of my post in round four. I explain why this point you make does nothing to justify homosexuality. "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." I pointed you to news articles. What does a social science journal have to do with the matter? The articles are written as matter of fact reporting, not science studies. Can you contest what is written in the articles? "That might be closer to segregation, or the legal separation of different groups." If a person prefers not to participate in a group, that is their own choice. "I have also shown that homosexuals can conceive children. " No, you have not. You have shown that they rely on heterosexual unions to give them children. No matter how a homosexual couples gets a child, whether it is through a sperm bank, adoption, or IVF, a heterosexual union is required to conceive the child. Throughout this debate, I have shown how, even with no outside influence, a heterosexual union and relationship has a special value that cannot be replaced by a homosexual union. In this round I demonstrated the stand alone value of a heterosexual relationship when I hypothetically discussed populating a planet. My opponent claims that he has shown that homosexual unions, as stand alone entities, are equal to heterosexual unions as stand alone entities. His claim is false however. He has not produced so much as one piece of evidence to show the natural value of the homosexual relationship. Instead, he relies on describing the benefits of homosexuals raising children. These children have nothing to do with the natural value of a homosexual relationship, as they were conceived through heterosexual union, thus affirming the special, irreplaceable value of the heterosexual union. Even when discussing adoption, my opponent failed to adequately address my argument which I made on the issue in round 3. I discussed the differences between males and females, and how a child would benefit more from being raised by a male and female, particularly his/her biological parents, as opposed to two members of the same sex. In a homosexual relationship, a child will never be raised by his/her biological parents. "It does not matter if they need aid" Here, my opponent says it does not matter whether he addresses the topic of the debate. The topic was the stand alone value of hetero vs. homo unions (no aid). I showed how aid is not required for a heterosexual union to have value, yet my opponent cannot produce evidence that a homosexual relationship has any value without artificial means and reliance on heterosexual unions. Because of this, I conclude that heterosexual relationships, by their nature, have great value which is not equaled by homosexual relationships. Because heterosexual relationships have special value which cannot be replaced by any other relationship, I summarize my conclusion with an argument made by Jim Spiegel: 1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society). 2. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value. 3. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction. 4. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions. 5. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust. 6. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.