Gay Marriage should be Illegal (2)

Feathers have been ruffledBefore I get into the substance of the argument, Pro seems to have taken offense to a remark of mine. Now in my defense I didn't realise that some one who wants to ban gay marriage just in case God doesn't like it while advocating an authoritarian government determining who can and can't have children to further the goals of eugenics would be the sensitive type. As such I withdraw the remark. Defending you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argumentPremise 1) Freedom is our defaultPro keeps implying that I am some how "shifting the burden". I have made my point why freedom should be our default. Lets consider the alternative/logical negation of this premise which would be freedom is NOT our default. I maintain that my premise is more plausible than its negation as Philosopher William Craig explains. .. "In order to show that an argument is no good, it is not enough for the sceptic to show that it’s possible that a premise is false. Possibilities come cheap. 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 premisses 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 has not provided any reason why the negation of my premise is more plausible. As I said before. .. "Oh but it does, the alternative to having freedom as our default would be that freedom is NOT our default. If this view was accepted philosophically 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. "And let us not forget if freedom was not our default, Pro would have to justify being allowed to even speak on gay marriage before they could argue against it and that would all deprive us of Pros wisdom in the matter and we wouldn't want that now would we ? Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPro seems to agree. 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 illegal"Pro seems to agree. CA = Counter ArgumentCA: ReligionPro tries to use a pascals wager on gay marriage, after all maybe God won't approve of Gay marriage. But Pro would reject such reasoning from a muslim/Jew/Pastafarian that says you had better do XYZ cause God might not approve of it. Like wise Pro's reasoning here that gay marriage should be banned cause God might not like it should also be rejected. Pro says "The religious laws of about 4 billion people would be satisfied on this count if homosexual marriage was illegal. ". .. "In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so. " [2]The Purpose of the StatePro directs me to the purpose of the state. There is one point I overlooked where Pro says. ."3. Thus, the state should regulate society to encourage that which is beneficial and prevent/minimise that which isn't. "Notice here and what I failed to notice, is that Pro doesn't argue that the state should prevent/minimise that which is "harmful" but rather prevent/minimise that which is not beneficial. There is no good reason to adhere to this for the following reasons. .. .1) Freedom is our default (already dealt with)2) You need a good reason to ban something (Pro agree's with this)3) The harm principle. .. "The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill first articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. "[3]Pro argues that the state should go beyond the harm principle to use its power to stop things just because they are not beneficial. Under Pros argument even if something is not hurting anybody or anything the state should seek to prevent minimize it if its not deemed "beneficial". This is a waste and mis use of state power and we have no reason to accept this. 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 ! !! Banning something just because its not "beneficial" is not a good reason to ban something. Eugenics and Gay MarriagePro tries to link eugenics with banning gay marriage but its a non sequitur. With the government not justified in banning something just because its not beneficial, even if you accept the goal of eugenics it doesn't necessarily follow that you have to ban gay marriage. Definitions of IllegalPro makes the point about "authorization". This was an oversight on my part, but if this is the best Pro has for banning gay marriage an oversight on a definition, is this really a "good" reason to ban marriage ? In any case if Pro wants to adhere to their interpretation of illegal means lack of authorization, then Pro would still have to prove the that gay marriage should not be authorized. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...