Gay Marriage should be Illegal (6)

Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultPro says..."To infringe upon freedom, an inalienable right, is a criminal offense both by government and civilian. The government is making no such endeavors to infringe upon freedom or the relationship of a gay couple."A law exists or a law is proposed which prevents two people of the same sex getting married. This is clearly a "limit" on freedom.The alternative would be that freedom is not our default. This alternative has never been argued for by Pro.Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalI don't think Pro has given us any good reason why gay marriage should be illegal.The alternative would be that you don't need a good reason to make something illegal. This alternative has never being argued by Pro.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 illegalThe argument stands unrefuted.The State & the Harm PrinciplePro says..."The Harm Principal- This does not apply because, by definition of the Principal, it doesn't prevent the way a couple acts. This supports CONCLUSION 1, in that freedom in still intact."It does apply in this case, cause there are laws on the books or proposed laws that mean two people of the same sex can't get married to each other,thus a restriction on their freedom.Pro has presented no argument that in anyway suggests that allowing gay marriage will result in harm to others.You need more than the law its self to justify its existence.Pro doesn't seem to argue against this.Defining marriage to exclude gay marriage and the requirements/definition of marriage in lawYou will recall that I showed an example of how marriage can be defined as to exclude others from marrying. Like the defining of marriage as only between a man and woman of the same race and thus excludes interracial couples from marrying. Like wise the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman excludes same sex couples from marrying, as Pro them self has said..."Defense of Marriage Act explicitly defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman." I think its hardly a good argument to merely point that gay marriage is not explicitly banned by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Allow me to show how ridiculousness this claim is, imagine there is a law that says you can't drive above 100km and the police pull you over for speeding cause you were driving at 120km. You shout at the police officer, the law doesn't explicitly says I can't drive at 120km, show me the law that says I can't drive at 120km !!!....At this point the police officer laughs at you........and possibly tazers you.Of course everyone understands that if a law that says you can't drive above 100km, it follows logically therefore its illegal to drive at 120 km cause its above 100km. Like wise it follows logically that if the law defines marriage as between a man and a woman then that means that a same sex couple can't get married.So here we have a law that results in a limit of freedom, the restriction of a same sex couple to get married. So what GOOD reason has Pro given us for that justifies this limit on freedom ? None.No amount of talking about who and what regulates marriage can change the fact that no good reason has been provided to justify the ban on gay marriage nor does making a distinction between criminal law and civil law change the fact no good reason has been to provided that bans gay marriage.I find it worrying that Pro is hiding behind the law, but can't justify the law its self.I look forward to Pros reply.