Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Contention 1) Freedom is our defaultPro does seem to agree with this, I never argued that absolute freedom should be allowed, which is shown in my second contention. Contention 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPro says "This isn't necessarily true. We have good reason to make smoking illegal, yet it still remains legal. Alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not. We have good reason to make alcohol illegal (we tried it once and obviously failed). However, I don't see any reason to keep marijuana illegal as long as alcohol is legal. "Nothing Pro says here refutes contention 2. Pro is referring to examples where arguably things that we have a good reason to ban are not banned. Even if this is the case, contention 2 doesn't say if we have a good reason to ban something then its automatic, it says that you need a good reason to make something illegal. Just because its the law doesn't make it rightPro says "Our government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which states that marriage is between one man and one woman. If my opponent disagrees with this definition of marriage, then he bears the burden of proof to show why this should be changed. "I hope Pro isn't using some kind of, its the law therefore its right by default argument. The banning of inter racial marriage or slavery could be argued for in times past as well, with the argument well its the law. As far as Pros' burden of proof remarks, even if I did have some sort of burden here, the burden here has been met with my two unrefuted contentions which are. .. .. .Contention 1) Freedom is our defaultContention 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalAlthough it should be kind of obvious, but due to these contentions, if a law exists that does not have a good reason to make something illegal, then the illegality should be removed. Consider this a new contention (but its not really new it did follow logically)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 illegalSame sex marriage = Special rights ? Pro says "I contend that giving homosexuals the right to marry is not about equal rights: it is about giving them special privileges. "To show how ridiculous Cons justification for this gay marriage = special rights claim, I will use their argument in order to argue against inter racial marriage. (Assume we live in a time where inter racial marriage was banned). I contend that giving mixed races the right to marry each other is not about equal rights: it is about giving them special privileges. No one in the United States can just marry anyone they want. If I fall in love with my cousin, I am not allowed to marry her because there are laws against incest. There are laws against bestiality, polygamy, and pedophilia. We cannot just marry anyone we want. I am not allowed to marry a member of a different race. People are allowed to marry, just not people of a different race. They have the same right to marry that I and other white and black people do. There is no way you would accept this kind of reasoning to ban inter-racial marriage (I hope), thus don't accept this kind of reasoning to ban gay marriage. Pro also says "It is about giving homosexuals special privileges, not about giving them "equal rights," because they already have equal rights with heterosexual"If gay marriage was allowed, heterosexuals would be just as legally entitled to marry the same sex (Whether they would want too is another question) There is no special right that applies to only gays by allowing gay marriage. Heterosexuals can marry, and so can gays. Its an interesting set of logic that concludes, allowing hetrosexuals to marry each other while banning gays to marry each other is equality, but allowing hetrosexuals to marry each other while also allowing gays to marry each other is giving special rights to gays and is unfair to hetrosexuals. (On a side note I just got a flash back to 1984. .. .. and hell I never even read the damm book ! !! )Marriage should only be allowed to couples that can make babies ? Pro says "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. I don't even know where to begin with this. .. .. .1) Men and woman don't need to be married to have kids, seeing Pro is so concerned with the continuation of the human species.2) Gays can still get pregnant, just not with each other.3) If you limit marriage to only couples that can produces children, then you would have to ban marriage of those who can't have children for example the infertile and the old aged. Sorry grandma, if you can't have kids, well your just like the gays, no marriage for you. Suffice to say, these are selective excuses to ban marriage. Gay marriage and the slippery slopePro says "Also, if you're going to support gay marriage, there is no reason why you shouldn't also support polygamy, pedophilia, incest, or bestiality. All of the reasons I've seen so far to support gay marriage can also be used to support those forms of sexual perversion. "Allow me to give Pro some reasons that would ban these other things but would not rule out gays getting married for example. .. ..1) Children can't get married (This would ban children being married but wouldn't exclude gays)2) Consent must be freely given (This would ban pedophiles raping or forcing the marriage of children, but wouldn't exclude gays from marrying)3) Inter species should be banned from marriage or sex (This would prevent bestiality, but wouldn't includes gays as they are of the same species)4) Incest and incest marriage should be banned (This wouldn't exclude gays from marrying)I look forward to Pros reply.