Gay Marriage should be Illegal (2)

Defending you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argumentPremise 1) Freedom is our defaultThe negation of this premise is that freedom is not our default. Previously I pointed out the dilemma of accepting this negation as you couldn't go to the toilet or that Pro himself wouldn't be granted the freedom to argue against gay marriage as a prior. Pro had no answer to this dilemma of accepting the negation of this premise.Pro likes to complain about this premise, but what reason did he give that its negation is at least just as plausible ?Pro says... "If Pro insists, I would propose that the most plausible explanation is that freedom is a societal construct...."This doesn't address the plausibility of the premise of freedom is our default vs freedom is not our default. Even if freedom is a societal construct it doesn't refute that freedom as our default is more plausible than having non freedom as our default.Pro says... "Note that I am not arguing for the negation of his premise, merely that it stands on the grounds of a false belief"If you arguing that the premise is false then you are implying that its negation is true. Pro didn't show that the negation of the first premise is true.Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPro at least as far as this debate is concerned agrees.Conclusion) 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 illegalDefinition of IllegalityPro says..." I've also only argued that gay marriages are not beneficial to society so the state should not seek to encourage them, and it should not endorse/authorise them."As Pro has decided to use illegal means lack of authorization I refer back to premise two which says P2) You need a good reason to make something illegal, or as Pros interpretation P2) You need a good reason not to authorize something.Pro doesn't seem to challenge this premise.CA: ReligionPro wants the government to accept a flawed logic which Pro them self does not accept, that being its flawed to make something illegal just in case God might get angry if you don't.Pro says..."I ask my opponent if he would be willing to denounce democracy, often considered to be strongly linked with freedom. If not, this point stands"There is no logical contradiction in affirming democracy while also affirming that just because a majority say something doesn't make it true. This is a false dilemma by Pro.The Purpose of the StatePreviously I said..."Once again under Pros purpose of state argument if the state deemed that it is not beneficial for Pro to come and debate then the state should seek to prevent/minimize Pro from doing so........God forbid !!!"Pro doesn't address the problem here, Pro merely dodges it by saying..."It is exceptionally unlikely that the state would not consider it beneficial that its citizens have time to engage in recreational and intellectually stimulating activities. . Excessive punctuation will not strengthen Con's argument."Maybe Pro should focus more on the problem of their premise here rather than my punctuation. We still have the problem here of what happens to Pro and his great debating skills when the state doesn't think its "beneficial" for Pro to debate. Under the premise of freedom being our default + the premise of you need a good reason + the harm principle Pro doesn't run into this problem.My argument is as such that the premise that the state should NOT prevent something if its not beneficial is more plausible over pros premise that the state should prevent something because its not beneficial. EugenicsPro says..." I have argued that marriage should be used by the state as a tool to encourage reproduction between desirable individuals."But as I pointed out before this is not a good reason to make gay marriage illegal/not authorize it, as it is not necessary to make gay marriage illegal in order to further the goals of eugenics. The benefits of gay marriagePro asks..."2. Why does Con suppose that marriage will reduce promiscuity and instability in gay relationships, and would he suggest marriage as the solution to the relationship problems of straight couples?"I think Pro misunderstood my remark here, I was speaking in the broad sense when I said that..."2) Gay marriage could possibly encourage non promiscuity, commitment and a more stable relationship between gays. This refutes that gay marriage can't result in anything beneficial."I was referring to this argument in the same way that it is used generally in order to support hetrosexual marriage. It doesn't necessarily means every gay/hetro couple should get married.Why is this important ? cause as Pro argued..."3. Thus, the state should regulate society to encourage that which is beneficial and prevent/minimise that which isn't"If we accept the first half of this premise (since I argued against the 2nd half) if gay marriage can possibly result in more stable gay relationships then the state should encourage it.Closing RemarksI need to wrap this up quickly so let me thank Pro for the debate and suggest that Pro did not present a compelling case why gay marriage should be illegal.