Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Contention 1) Freedom is our defaultPro seems to agree, but then seems to back track. By saying freedom is our default, is that we start with an innocent till proven guilty assumption, or in this case, freedom or legality is given as an assumption until proven other wise. Contention 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPro says "However, if something is already illegal (such as same-sex marriage or marijuana), then you need a good reason to legalize it. "Yes, and the reason for legalizing something, is that the reason or reasons that are used to support something being illegal are shown to be insufficient. Once again, due to the requirement that illegality needs a good reason to support it, the law just saying something is illegal is not enough in of its self. Example in Some Muslim Nation, Christian preaching is banned. Just using the fact that the law says christian preaching is banned is insufficient grounds for making that something illegal. Just like just referring to the law that gay marriage is banned is insufficient grounds for making that something illegal. Pro says "Second, if we must have good reason for making something illegal (contention two), then that must mean since it's illegal there was good reason for making it so. "This is clearly shown false, imagine a Nazi argument, hey we passed a law making it illegal for Jews to live, and according to Pros logic the fact that its illegal must mean there is a good reason for it. 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 illegalThis has gone without challenge. Pro makes the claim that the contentions are refuted, yet they seem to agree with them, at least in principle. I hardly think the contentions are refuted. Just because its the law doesn't make it rightPro agrees here, and is also a way of summarising my contentions. Pro also says "Agreed. However, even though it's the law doesn't make it wrong. You still have to show why it's wrong. "I never argued that just because its the law that makes it wrong. The short answer of why its wrong to ban gay marriage, is because there isn't a good reason to ban gay marriage, and without that reason the banning doesn't have sufficient justification for its existence. The morality of sexualityPro makes a point about you can't be wrong by being too much Mexican, fair enough, but the question is, has Pro given a good reason for selecting gays out of the pack to be denied being able to marry other gays ? Same sex marriage = Special rights ? Previously I argued against Pros argument that said denying gays to marry gays is equality with heterosexuals being allowed to marry hextrosexuals, but if gays are allowed to marry other gays this is inequality with hetrosexuals marrying other hextrosexuals. as I said before this is an interesting piece of logic. But Pro provides us with an answer as to explain this as Pro says "This is irrelevant. The fact remains that the only people who would want to marry a member of the same sex are homosexuals. They are seeking special privileges under the guise of "equal rights. " Heterosexuals would have no desire to marry a person of the same sex, so really the only people who benefit from it would be homosexuals. "First its VERY relevant as Pros argument was about how allowing gay marriage gives gays a special right. As I said before the allowing of gay marriage would allow hetrosexuals to marry the the same gender too, Pro can't refute that so the whole argument that gay marriage = special right for gays is shown false. Never the less Pro goes on to make an argument that allowing gay marriage gives gays a special right. So lets see here, Pro has no problem only allowing hetrosexuals to marry and this only applies to hetrosexuals cause only hetrosexuals want to marry the other gender. BUT if gay marriage is allowed, then this give a special rights to gays cause only gays want to marry gays. So what we have here is. .. .. .. .1) Marriage that bans gay marraige and is exclusive to Hetrosexual marraige and only applies to hextrosexuals cause only hetrosexuals want to marry people of the other gender does not give a special right to hetrosexuals.2) Marriage that includes both hetrosexual and gay marriage gives gays a special right. To emphasise this point let me use an example, an example where ONLY gays are allowed to marry but heterosexual marriages are banned. (Assume only gay marriage is allowed, and hetrosexual marriage is banned) I argue, look, heterosexuals are allowed to marry people of their own sex, but what they are seeking is special rights. If we allow hetrosexual marriage, this only applies to hextrosexuals as only hextrosexuals want to marry people of the other gender. As such this confers are a special right to hetrosexuals. Is this a joke ? You would condemn such reasoning to ban hetrosexual marriage (I hope), thus you should condemn such reasoning to ban gay marriage. Yes, that's right, in Pros world, if some one or group is being treated differently, then that group is being treated equal, but if that group is treated equal, then that group is getting special rights. As Pro says "What they are pushing for is legislation for which only they would benefit, ergo they are seeking special privileges"Oh by the way, I am against slavery being abolished. You see only blacks are slaves, so abolishing slavery only benefits blacks, ergo they are seeking special privileges. I am also against the minimum wage, you see because slaves work below the minimum wage, slaves seeking a minimum wage only benefits then, ergo they are seeking special privileges. Once again, you would reject such logic, as such the logic of Pro banning gay marriage here should be rejected. Marriage should only be allowed to couples that can make babies ? Pro says "1) Homosexuals don't need to be married to express their love for each other. I fail to see where this logic is relevant to the debate"Cause you implied marriage was something that should only happen to couples that can produce children as you said before. .. "Homosexuality also goes against nature. A man cannot procreate with another man, and a woman cannot procreate with another woman. They cannot raise a biological family together. In order for our species to continue, we must conceive children to replace the elderly who are dying off. Homosexual unions do not allow this to happen. "Pro says "3) I never said marriage should be restricted to only couples who can reproduce. "Then why did you bring up the whole gays can't have children with each other then ? If marriage is not restricted to those who can have children like granny, then why did you bring up this irrelevant point about how gays can't have children with each other ? Gay marriage and the slippery slopePro says "I should point out that I never made the slippery slope argument. I never said that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing incest, polygamy, etc. " then Pro says " If gay marriage should be allowed, then there must be good reasons for why these other forms of sexuality should not be allowed. Otherwise, they should all be allowed. "Of course your not Pro, your just saying that allowing gay marriage will result in incest marriage and bestiality and the doors of hell being open to Satan and his demons conquering the world. .. .. .I am running out of characters, I will address the slippery slope of gay marriage in more detail in the next round. I look forward to Pros reply.