Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Gay marriage and the slippery slope (continued from the last round)You will recall that Pro maintains that they have never seen a good reason that allows for gay marriage (I wonder how hard Pro really has looked) which if accepted, in the interest in fairness would not result in incest, bestiality & pedophilia. I gave some possible reasons that can be accepted that would justify the ban of the other things pro mentions but not ban gay marriage. But notice that Pro moves the goal posts, even though I provided possible reasons, Pro doesn't acknowledge those as good reasons. Allow me to elaborate on one of my reasons and maybe see if Pro will accept it as a "good" reason that if applied won't result in the other things mentioned.1) Sexual consent must be given by all parties involved. If we adopt this reason as a good reason, then this rules out beastiality, as the requirements of "consent" can not be met. Consent here is referred to here in a legal context. Now maybe Pro could just say well I don't find that a good reason. Well Pro is entitled to their opinion, just like people who think their is no good reason to allow whites to marry non whites. Its not my job to provide Pro with what they think are good reasons, Pro doesn't get to ban gay marriage by default, I only provide this possible reason to stimulate thought. The Slippery slope is not a good reason to ban anything (unless you have sufficient warrant). Consider the example of where women were not allowed to vote, and a person wanted to keep it that way. The person could argue something along the lines of. .. . If women voteing should be allowed, then there must be good reasons for why we don't allow pigs and donkeys to vote other wise it should be allowed. I am not making the argument that pigs and donkey voteing will become legal, just that, in fairness, we have no reason to continue to deny them. Would you accept such reasoning to deny women voting ? if not, then why accept such reasoning to deny gay marriage ? Contention 1) Freedom is our defaultPro seems to be having alot of trouble understanding this simple concept. Contention 1 does not conclude therefore there are no limits. Its makes the point how we err on the side of freedom, we give freedom of something the benefit of the doubt. When we have a good reason to make something illegal THEN we make it illegal. Contention 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPro says "Number one, Con has not shown any sort of precedent for why we need a good reason to make something illegal. "That's just awful. If people with the mindset of Pro every get into positions of power, God help us. Any statement that says or implies that you don't need a good reason to make something illegal condemns its self. Contention 3) 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 illegal. I never argued we have absolute freedom, my contention 2 even allows for things to be banned. As such all of Pros arguments based on this straw man is irrelevant. The morality of sexualityPro says "My contention here stands unchallenged. Belonging to a particular race is not a moral issue. It's not immoral to be too Mexican. However, sexuality is based on morality, and everyone has different opinions on what sexuality is acceptable and what sexuality is wrong. "I would remind Pro, that their are still Nazi's and kkk around. Seeing Pro implies that any disagreement makes something a "moral" issue (example gay marriage). By Pros own standard, this refutes that being a particular race isn't a moral issue. Now maybe Pro or some one else might retort, just because there are some people that regard being a certain race is immoral, doesn't make it so, and even if it does, doesn't mean we should deny things to them. Indeed, just like because some one says or implies being gay is wrong, doesn't make it so, and even if it is, doesn't mean we should deny things to them. Consider Pros argument here. .. .1) We cannot just marry anyone we want. If I fall in love with my cousin, I cannot marry her. Just like no one should be able to marry a member of the same gender.1) We can't marry anyone we want (I agree)2) I can't marry my cousin (I agree)3) Therefore lets ban or keep gay marriage banned ? This is a non sequitur, even if we agree with the premises the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Gays and NaturePro says "2) Gay marriage goes against nature. "Gay marriage goes against nature ? Even if it does, so what ? Are we to ban things that go against nature ? How natural do you think a plane is ? If God wanted man to fly, he would of given us wings, obviously man in flight is a moral abomination. I think we should all go Amish. Pro says "Homosexuals cannot naturally procreate with each other. They cannot raise a biological family together. "Pro already agreed that being able to have children is not a necessary criteria in order to allow marriage, for example dear old granny. Pro says "In order for humanity to continue, we must replace the elderly who are dying off" What's the argument here ?1) In order to continue, we must replace the elderly who are dying off2) Therefore ban gay marriageWe have been over this, hetrosexuals can produce children both outside and inside of marriage. Don't worry Pro, if gay marriage is allowed, you can have all the hetrosexual sex in a marriage, and produce all the children that are are a product of that sex, in that hetrosexual marriage. Allowing Gay marriage doesn't change that one bit. Same sex marriage = Special rights ? Pro still maintains, that if a group is being denied something and that group seeks to end that denial, cause the removal of this denial would only advantage them, then this equates to that group seeking special rights. (Its 1984 all over again people ! !! ) Maybe those Islamic nations should use this argument the next time they are rebuked for banning Christian preaching. Hey Christians are allowed to preach Islam, the only people who want to preach Christianity are Christians ergo they are seeking special rights. Would you find this kind of reasoning utterly contemptible ? I hope so. Closing remarksPro pretty much grabbed what ever they could get their hands on to justify the banning of gay marriage, I am surprised they didn't use a think of the children speech, or that the very survival of humanity depends on the banning of gay marriage (oh wait they kind of did). At the end of the day, the denial of something to a person or group is serious business. What is being denied here is gays being able to marry other gays, the question is, has Pro being able to justify this denial ? has Pro being able to provide a good reason for this limit of freedom ? or has Pro merely given a bunch of excuses ? Ladies and Gentlemen, there is an elephant in the room here, and that elephant is people just don't like homosexuals or homosexual behavior. Not only do people not like it, some may even find it disgusting. Well the great thing is, you don't have to like it, nor do you have to not be disgusted by it. The only thing that is being asked is that you don't use any personal prejudice on your part to deny gays to marry other gays. Don't like gay marriage ? The solution is simple. .. .. .just don't marry a gay person, not deny gay marriage.