Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest.

First of all I would like to congratulate my opponent for barely making the deadline for his submission. I hope PRO's schedule has cleared up a bit so that PRO can focus on this debate without undue time constraints.I will remind voters that it is up to my opponent to provide the burden of proof, and that regardless of your personal feelings on this matter, to limit your voting preferences to the arguments presented in this debate.PRO's argument is very simple, despite its voluminous length:Assumptions:PRO states that the government's role is "to fight that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens to be, as well as to codify for future reference what is not within our freedoms, and to allow people as a group to determine what constitutes explicitly acceptable behavior, both for the government itself and for the people who are members of it." PRO then declares that freedom is defined as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are inalienable rights, things which to which all people ought be entitled... it is an explicit declaration that all people ought be afforded the freedom to be. " PRO also asserts "the other is equal to self by virtue of equal existence, therefore other must be treated as self, principally because equals ought be treated equally," i.e. "do to others as you would have them do to you." [2]PRO further states that "there are certain problems of natural evil: people die, people have emotions which wrest control of their own bodies from their rational minds, people have needs and drives which they CANNOT ignore which otherwise limit their freedoms..." PRO observes that in an imperfect world, "individuals who live together rather than alone...spend[] fewer raw materials or expend[] less available energy for their combined survival and freedom." It follows that such arrangements grant the participants more freedom.I do not understand why it took PRO 10+ citations and 2/3 of PRO's round to state such mundane details - it belittled his argument, which was indeed quite brief. Regardless, the format of this debate will give you (the voter), me, and my opponent more time and space to make them more relevant.What PRO has failed to address is that in an imperfect world with natural evil, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil," [3] that in order to "fight [for] that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens," it may at times have to compromise the freedoms of some of its citizenry for the "greater good". One easy example of this compromise of freedom of some of its citizenry is the need to maintain a military and police force - how else would the government be able to "fight that which does insult to the freedom of its citizens"? Freedom is not free. "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of Patriots..." Thomas Jefferson [1]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. Because of this, it follows that the less the government gets involved in, the better.Thomas Paine said it best: "security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others." [3]--From these assumptions, PRO then makes two bald assertions:1) that "the government has a responsibility to encourage such situations of cohabitation through the offering of contracts which formalize the responsibilities between cohabitants and to provide incentives for engaging in such effort-reducing activities," and2) that it is the government's role to "encourag[e] and publiciz[e] and tak[e] measures to increase the longevity of such partnerships and cohabitation...it reduces the activities (and thus the opportunity cost) necessary to satisfy biological drives." I have no idea why the government would have to undertake such tasks, when private actors in the private sector are perfectly capable of doing so on their own. I argue that...1) Private actors would see it in their best interest to cohabitate and dictate the terms of their own living arrangements WITHOUT government intervention - this is what college students already do all around the world. The government does NOT have "a responsibility to encourage such situations."2) The government has no business forcing a natural biological function such as the need for companionship. People through their own biological functions will find more than enough encouragement through their natural impulses (i.e. sexual drives) to seek companionship, as PRO himself states that "humans have a biological drive to find mates and keep them close." PRO may argue that there is no force involved, as he states that "while people CAN choose to spend their time [looking for companionship], they shouldn't HAVE TO." Yet that is exactly what the government is doing by getting involved. Why? Because 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. The government is expending time and effort to "increase the longevity of such partnerships", time and effort that is wholly unnecessary due to the natural biological function, and which can be directed towards more pertinent issues, whatever they may be. The citizenry is forced to adhere to such government intervention. If a citizen or body of citizens objects to this monolithic government's sense of morality, the government is authorized to use its military and police force to ensure compliance.Again, "measures to increase the longevity of such partnerships and cohabitation" can be accomplished through the private sector. Some examples of a private sector solution would be a romance novel, or a bouquet of flower, or a lavish hotel suite for the more adventurous.Unless I have missed something in PRO's argument, I find solid grounds to dismiss all of his arguments up to this point. He has offered no proof or valid arguments that "Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest." Indeed I would go so far as to say that the entire concept of a "sanctioned domestic partnership contract" is irrelevant to his position, as private actors can cohabitate and seek companionship without some outside body "sanctioning" their partnership.[1] http://www.monticello.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.ushistory.org...