Gay Marriage should be Illegal (4)

Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultPro makes the point about how there are many laws on many things. I don't dispute this, but that isn't what my premise here is going on about. The premise merely makes the point about how we have the presumption of freedom before we decide to make something illegal. Didn't I make this point clear enough ? The premise doesn't necessarily mean that everything should be allowed no matter what, as such Pros objection here it seems to me is based on a misunderstanding. The alternative would be that Freedom is NOT our default. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPro doesn't dispute the premise and seeks to provide a good reason that gay marriage should be banned. 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 illegalHow does gay marriage effect hetrosexual marriage ? Pro says. .. "but if they wish to take the social, legal, spiritual and religious sectors out of the marriage procedure, then straight couples will not receive the same intimacy that is desired when they set out for matrimony. "Allowing gay marriage will result in less intimacy for the hetrosexuals ? Well maybe only if the hetrosexuals invite the gays into the bedroom, but other than that I don't think a reasonable person will accept this claim. So unless Pro wants to provide justification for this claim lets move on. .. .Marriage and the ChurchPro says. .. "just a law against their marriage, which is a holy and sanctioned thing that has been traditionally between genders. " & "What this fails to mention is the fact that marriage is a thing done by the church, an institute which is firmly against gay marriage. That gays should be together is true, but for them to corrupt that which is of the holiest nature,"Is marriage holy ? what exactly does saying marriage is holy and sanctioned mean exactly ? Isn't saying marriage is holy just a disguised way to try and use religion/God in order to justify Pros position ? . Anyone can invoke God to try and ban something. Marriage doesn't have to be done by a "church", so whether the "church" is for or against gay marriage is kind of irrelevant. If a church is against interracial marriage does that mean we should not allow interracial marriage too ? I don't think so. Three words. .. . Separation, Church, State. Pros premise Premise 2) NormalityUnder this heading, Pro throws in a mix bagged of comments but its hard to determine exactly on what grounds Pro justifies banning gay marriage. Pro mentions everything from Surnames to breast feeding. Is breast feeding necessary in order to allow two people to get married ? Won't somebody think of the children ! !! Pro says. .. "Their school life will be thwarted with bullies targeting the “kid with the gay mums/dads”, or the knowingly “adopted kid”. Better that marriage stays between genders, for the good of children. "I recall this kind of argument being used by people against interracial marriage when they argued that the children will have a difficult life cause they are neither part of the white community or black community. Under this kind of argument we could ban fat people getting married cause they will probably have fats kids and bullies will target fatty junior. Pro says. .. "They will always be missing either the masculinity of a dad or the femininity of a mum, both of which are needed in a life. "This is factually false, as shown by single parents. Maybe what Pro really means is that its better to have both a mum and dad, but what is important from the interest of the child view is the environment in which they are raised. A loving caring non abusive gay environment trumps an abusive non loving non caring hetrsoxexual environment. I think this is all academic anyway, because even if you accept pros assertions regarding child rearing, this doesn't prove that gay marriage should be banned, only that gays should not be allowed to raise children, and thats a seperate issue. We could agree to all of Pros arguments here and allow gay marriage while banning gays from rearing children. Argument from TraditionPro says. .. "Marriage should stay between genders and not be twisted by a few people who wish that they can manipulate an age old tradition. "First it should be pointed out how Pro uses loaded language here how gays are trying to "manipulate" marriage, putting gays in a villainous role. There was a time when slavery was an age old tradition, appealing to tradition is not only not a good argument its a logical fallacy as wikipedia explains. .. "Appeal to tradition (also known as proof from tradition,appeal to common practice, argumentum ad antiquitatem) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way. "An appeal to tradition essentially makes two assumptions that are not necessarily true:1)The old way of thinking was proven correct when introduced, i. e. since the old way of thinking was prevalent, it was necessarily correct. In actuality this may be false — the tradition might be entirely based on incorrect grounds.2)The past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. In actuality, the circumstances may have changed; this assumption may also therefore be untrue. " [1]I look foward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...