gay marriage should be legal

First off, thanks to pro for the debate. In this round I will do two things. First, I'll reply to my opponent's points. I will follow this with an argument against same sex marriage (SSM for short).Pro's ArgumentI think that pro's argument simply does not work. The first premise states, "Liberty is a default position in that we assume liberty unless given ample reason to place restrictions on it." In other words, if there are not good reasons for banning a practice, then it should be legal. This is unobjectionable as far as it goes, though it isn't particularly informative as well. We all know not to place restrictions on things for no reason.The second premise says that, "Marriage of any kind is cultural and, therefore, unnatural." But how does it follow from the fact that something is cultural that it is unnatural? Though beans are a part of some cultures, it doesn't follow that they are unnatural. Maybe pro can elucidate more on what he means by terms such as "cultural" and "natural", and show the mutual exclusivity of the two.A final problem is that the argument is just not valid. Even re-formulating it in the most charitable way I could think of:(1) If there are not good reasons for banning a practice, then it should be legal.(2) Marriage of any kind is un-natural.(3) Therefore, gay marriage should be legal.it simply doesn't work. In terms of logic, this is not a valid form at all. Maybe given the premise "If something is unnatural, then there is no good reason to ban it," we could turn this into an argument which is formally valid, though this premise seems definitely wrong. Either way, we don't really know what pro means by "natural" and "un-natural", so it's impossible to assess whether it's true or not.In summary:- The first premise is only trivially true.- Something's being cultural doesn't imply that it's unnatural.- The terms "cultural" and "unnatural" aren't well-defined.- Something's being unnatural doesn't mean there are no good reasons to ban it.- The argument isn't valid. Hopefuly pro will be able to fix these problems up so we can have a better debate.The Law Should Distinguish Heterosexual and Homosexual Unions:(1) There are emotional, sexual, and parental goods which are exclusive to heterosexual union. (2) If relationships of type X and type Y do not share the same goods, then X and Y are not equivalent. (3) Therefore, heterosexual union and non-heterosexual union are not equivalent. (4) Therefore, heterosexual union and homosexual union are not equivalent. (5) If the law treats both heterosexual union and homosexual union as marriage, then the law is not distinguishing between things which are not equivalent.(6) The law should distinguish between relationships which are not equivalent.(7) Therefore, the law should not treat both heterosexual union and homosexual union as marriage.(8) The law should treat heterosexual union as marriage.(9) Therefore, the law should not treat homosexual union as marriage.The basic idea of the argument is this. Heterosexual union has emotional, sexual and parental goods which aren't found in other types of relationships. These include the specific types of bonds a mother and father can jointly share with a child, the ability to engage in sexual relations which are inherently ordered toward reproduction, and others. Because of this they are not equivalent in nature to non-heterosexual unions, just as the fact that platonic friendships or business relationships have certain exclusive goods sufficiently establishes that they are not equivalent. But if these goods are exclusive to heterosexual union, this also establishes that heterosexual union and homosexual union are not equal. And just as the law distinguishes between friendship and business relationships due to their non-equivalence, it should do the same for heterosexual and homosexal relationships. Yet, if the law were to treat heterosexual and homosexual relationships as both being marriage in the exact same sense, it would not be distinguishing between relationships which are not equivalent. Hence, the state should only treat one of these as marriage. Now, most same-sex marriage proponents do not deny that the law should grant marriage to heterosexual couples. The state has a much more vital interest in upholding heterosexual union, as it is directly relevant to whether or not the society continues to grow or not. Hence,the law should treat heterosexual union as marriage and, in the spirit of making relevant distinctions, not do the same for homosexual unions.Counter-sources: http://www.penang-traveltips.com...