Gay Marriage/Same Sex Marriage should be Illegal (3)

Defending you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argumentPro doesn't seem to dispute these premises, but Pro does seem to encourage me to offer further argument in support of them. Is it really necessary for me to do so if you don't dispute the premise ? Never the less. .. .. .Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultThe logical negation to having freedom as our default would be that freedom is NOT our default. If this view was accepted philosophical and/or legally you couldn't even go to the toilet unless you provided some sort of justification for it. Everything would be banned until proved other wise. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalThe logical negation of this premise would be that we don't need a good reason to make something or keep something illegal. C) If a law exists that does not have a good reason for making something illegal, then the law should be changed so the thing is no longer illegalWhy am I making this point about the logical negations to my premises ? because as Philosopher William Craig explains. .. "I’m puzzled that so many laymen seem to think that merely stating another possibility is sufficient to defeat a premise. This is mistaken, for the premises of an argument need be neither necessary nor certain in order for that argument to be a good one. The detractor of the argument needs to show either that the premiss in question is false or that its negation is just as plausibly true as the premise itself" [1]Pro doesn't challenge these premises nor provide any reason why the logical negation of these premises are more plausibly true. The Procreation argument & creative type actsPreviously I pointed out the two highly significant admission from Pro those being. .. .. .1) The ability to have children is NOT necessary in order to allow two people to marry. Pro does seem to agree that the ability to have children is not relevant as to who can and can't get married.2) Pro is arguing that marriage should only be allowed to couples that can have penis/vagina sexual intercourse (or as pro likes to call it "Pro creative type acts")Pro says. .. "For I have never suggested that a heterosexual’s relationship will no longer embody intrinsic value if the State were to grant same-sex marriage as legal. Rather, I have advocated the position that if the State were to grant same-sex marriage as legal the State would then be inadvertently comparing and granting homosexual behaviour as ethically equal to that of heterosexual behaviour"I think we have a third highly significant admission from Pro that being. .. .3) That allowing gay marriage will NOT result in the loss of intrinsic value of a hetrosexual relationship (read hetrosexual marriage)Homosexuality and moralityAfter these admissions and clarifications from Pro, I did wonder what reason was left to ban gay marriage. Well Pro helps once again clarify their argument and says. .. "for the two types of behavior (Homosexual and heterosexual) are morally dissimilar to one another and thus incomparable. "Saying they are morally dissimilar is kinda vague cause it could mean either. .. .1) Homosexuality is immoral2) Homosexuality is amoral 3) Homosexuality is moral but just not quite as moral as heterosexualityIt seems to me that Pro is arguing that homosexuality is immoral (in a non direct manner), hence cause Gay marriage entails immoral homosexuality, therefore gay marriage should be illegal. Wouldn't it of been easier if Pro just said this in the first place ? I conclude that this is what Pro means, cause if Pro was to argue that they are not saying that homosexuality is immoral, just that its not on the same MORAL LEVEL as heterosexuality, this greatly takes away from the impact of making a moral argument against gay marriage. Now there is a huge problem here with this premise that homosexuality is immoral, and that is, Pro would have to show that homosexuality is immoral. The trouble is that isn't enough, cause even under Pros argument for their definition of marriage doesn't exclude some one or couple from marriage just because immoral acts will be done within that marriage. Consider the example of the big tobacco executive who denies that smoking causes cancer, while also doing what they can to sell as much of these cancer sticks, even trying to get new customers (read children) cause there long term customers seem to be quite rude in dying on average earlier than the non smoking people. Does Pro demand that this person should not allowed to get married because of their "immorality" ? of course not. How about the hetrosexual couple that is abusive or will be abusive to their children ? Does Pros concept of marriage mean they can't get married ? are they denied marriage on immoral grounds ? of course not, Pro just likes to focus in on the immorality of the gays. The unestablished, unsubstantiated immorality of the gays. Pros premise""P1) If the state affirms that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage, then the state denies the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children, and denies the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union (insofar as it implies that sexual acts have only instrumental value). ""It has been established that the ability to have children is NOT necessary in order to allow two people to marry & Pro admits that allowing gay marriage will NOT result in the loss of intrinsic value of a hetrosexual relationship. What reason is left to support the premise ? As far as Pros saying. .. "I am not sure what to say back in response to his opinion. For no argument can be made in response to mere opinion. I guess I can thank him for sharing his beliefs on the matter of my argument. " I merely return Pros own words to Pro in relation to their claim that a womans relationship with a man is fulfilled on the condition of bearing and rearing children. Incidentally, I keep using this as a pick up line but its not working for me. Multi-level Union and SpiritualityI find it dubious that Pro implies the spirituality of marriage, yet Pros foundation of who can and can't get married is entirely down to a physical distinction, that being one person of a couple must have a penis and the other one a vagina. Pro never tells us what spirituality they are talking about, nor does Pro really spell out what this "multi-level" union is that they keep referring too. The argument for Gay MarriageConsider again where Pro argues. .. "Marriage is not just a means toward procreation, but a multi-leveled (bodily, emotional, spiritual) personal union that is fulfilled by expanding into family, but remains good in itself if in a particular case it cannot do so. ""1) Gay marriage can't produce children2) Marriage is good in its self even if its unable to produce children (Pros argument)3) Therefore gay marriage can be good4) Therefore we should not make gay marriage illegalI look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...