Gay Marriage should be Illegal (3)

Regulation of marriageUnder this principle of a law is justified if it reflects society, slavery was and is justified, also under the Taliban it was a law to stop young girls from learning to much. No its not a compelling state interest, it just your typical run of the mill tyranny. Pro seems to agree with my original point that you need more than just the law its self in order to justify its existence. You seem to be suggesting that a society should not be free to make laws that reflect their culture. Yes, just because a law exists is not justification for its existence. However, I can't judge another country's laws when the history and justifications for their laws may be very different than Western style laws. What makes a law "justified" in the US is the harm principle and any compelling State interests. Slavery was justified at the time the US had such laws on the book because slaves were chattle and thus unable to have rights and the State had an interest in cheap labor to support the massive plantations in the South. Do I agree with it from today's prospective? ? - Undeniably, unequivocally, NO! But a society's laws must necessarily reflect that society. Given, the current society we live in and the current opinion polls I would say our current prohibition on gay marriage reflects our society at large. Marriage & Procreation & Viable childrenAlthough Pro puts in an admiral effort, Pro merely gives a law which says nothing about restricting marriage to only those who can produce "viable children" Pros gives THEIR INTERPRETATION of the law, an interpretation I don't think is justified. Okay that’s fair, Con doesn’t want to take my word for it. The Illinois Senate Bill 1140 (amending the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act), was made law by Public Act 89-459 on May 24, 1996. So let’s see what Illinois SB 1400 sponsor, Senator Peter Fitzgerald has to say about the law’s intention:"We think it would be nice for a child to have a mother and a father," Fitzgerald said. "You need to remember that the primary purpose of family is procreation and protection of children. " [1]And this, although not a direct quote is from a contemporaneous news article, “Fitzgerald has argued that gay marriage is aberrant to the basic purpose of marriage: reproduction. ” [2]Now this 1996 law banned same sex marriages, so I think the intent is clear for at least that portion of law since we saw the sponsor espouse those views. What about the original law? I admit that it is cost/time prohibited to research this law past its pre-1970’s roots. But as I said before the intent can be seen in § 750 ILCS 5/212(4)(ii) where first cousins can marry if they are sterile or too old to reproduce. Cousins and other ancestor/descendants with strong consanguinity are forbidden because the offspring may not be viable. As Pro mentions the only exception, is given to first cousin marriage. What can I say, maybe the good folk of Illinois really really want to marry their first cousins eh ? No. I think a more reasonable reading would see that the law doesn’t have a moral objection to cousin marriage but rather an objection to the union creating offspring. I guess my mistake was assuming that what I meant by viable was clear. What I mean by viable is that the offspring are more likely than not to have defects. Incest is banned almost universally for this reason. Cousin marriages and ancestor/descendant unions have produced children with defects (founder effect) as found in Amish communities today. The State and the harm principleI think I should also address something about the harm principle, its not enough to ban something just because its not beneficial to the state. The state allows lots of things which are not beneficial to the state even when applying the harm principle for example smoking, obesity etc. Arguable these things are even harmful, but ultimately they harm the individual more and not the general public as such the state is not justified in banning it. Like wise it may be the case that gay marriage is not beneficial to the state but that still isn't enough to justify the banning of gay marriage. I think my opponent is quite fond of strawmen. The harm principle applies first – if there’s no harm to others it shouldn’t be illegal. But even if there is no harm to others the state interest kicks in where there is one. For example, there is no harm to others if I don’t register my vehicle with the state – no liberties infringed upon, nobody injured, etc. But the state has a compelling interest to levy and collect taxes, fines and penalties and the like. I don’t think my opponent gets how these two concepts are related in law. Closing Remarks. What it all boils down to is that protecting traditional marriage has a useful purpose in society and so is protected by the State. This would be the good reason in Con's Premise #2. So, as I’ve demonstrated there is a good reason to make something illegal (gay marriage) thus the law shouldn’t be changed. Sources:[1] “Senate Approves A Ban On Same-Sex Marriages”. Chicago Tribune (Mar 29, 1996). Metro Chicago Section, p.1 [2] “Christians Disagree on Gay Marriage Ban”. Tom Hernandez, Shaumburg Review (April 4, 1996).