Gay Marriage should be Illegal (3)

Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultThe alternative would be that freedom is NOT our default. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalThe alternative would be that you DON'T need a good reason to make something illegal. 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 illegalRegulation of marriagePreviously I said. .. "would the fact that a law exists that bans Christianity be a good reason to make Christianity illegal ? what about the fact there are places that ban women from driving, is the fact their is a law some where that bans women from driving a good reason to ban women from driving ? of course not. "Pro replies. .. "What makes a good law if it reflects the society that created it and protects the interests of that society (i. e. compelling state interest). So, I suppose in some countries banning women drivers and Christians may very well be a compelling State interest. I don’t know their society well enough to judge that. "Under 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. 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. The first 4 laws in Pros example all have to do with "incest". The first 3 laws give no exemptions what so ever that this incest marriage is allowed on the condition of being sterile and/or won't/can't produce children in this incest marriage. This refutes Pros suggestion that these restrictions on marriages are based on viable children grounds and not moral grounds. 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 ? There is a good reason why a law wouldn't want to state the restriction of marriage based on viable children, that being you are now making a distinction between viable children and non viable children and that gets you into all sorts of problems. Pro never tells us what these viable and non viable children are. The State and the harm principlePro says. .. "There is a compelling state interest, however, and that is the protection of the family unit"This implies that allowing gay marriage will some how harm or poses a danger to the family unit. Allowing murders and rapists as long as they are a man and a woman to marry doesn't seem to harm marriage or the family unit. I think you can afford a couple of law abiding homo's to marry. I 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. Pros argument1) If there is a compelling State interest to regulating (or making illegal) some activity, then the State should.2) Limiting marriage to couples able to procreate and produce viable children is a compelling state interest. 3) Gay couples (by themselves) cannot produce viable children together. (I agree)C) Therefore, we should ban gay marriage. I don't think this argument works and I will explain why. For starters the bit about the gays should be a separate premise. Premise 3) is a given. Why should we accept premise 2 ? Notice that you don't need marriage at all in order to produce viable children. If Pro is so concerned and is arguing that the state should be so concerned about viable children being born, then you would have to regulate pro creation not marriage. Pro merely throws marriage in there, when its unnecessary to do so. As such premise 2) could be written as. .. 2) The state has a compelling interest to regulate procreation in order to ensure only viable children are born.1) If there is a compelling State interest to regulating (or making illegal) some activity, then the State should.2) The state has a compelling interest to regulate procreation in order to ensure only viable children are born.3) Gay couples (by themselves) cannot produce children together. C) Therefore, we should ban gay marriage. But notice this argument is a non sequitur, you can accept the premises as true, but the conclusion doesn't logically follow. There is also another problem, the problem being the statement and concept of a "viable child". Why is this a problem ? cause it implies there is such thing as a "non viable" child. I can merely argue that a child that is born, by definition, by its nature and by its existence is a "viable" child and thus there is no such thing as a "non viable child" with this in mind lets look at Pros second premise"2) Limiting marriage to couples able to procreate and produce viable children is a compelling state interest. "Premise 2 implies that the state should regulate marriage to try and stop the creation of "non viable children", and thus is based on a on a lie so the premise is false. With premise 2) being false the argument is unsound and can be rejected. I can also use this concept of all child born are viable into a counter argument. Viable children and marriage argument1) All children born are viable and there is no such thing as an non viable child2) Therefore the state has no justification for restricting marriage whether hetrosexual or homosexual on the grounds to prevent the creation of non viable children. Now maybe Pro can challenge me on my argument that there is no such thing as a "non viable child". What if there is such thing as a "non viable" child ? I don't think this would help Pros argument cause the justification for restricting marriage is based on the goal, the compelling interest as Pro puts it, in preventing "non viable" children being born. But as Pro pointed out gays can't produce children and thus pose no danger in producing non viable children. As such their is no justification for banning gay marriage on the grounds of trying to stop non viable children being born. The argument is as follows. .. The State, viable children and gay marriage argument1) The state has a compelling interest to restrict marriage where a non viable child could be produced2) Gay couples (by themselves) cannot produce children together. (whether viable or non viable)3) Therefore the state has no compelling interest to ban gay marriage on the grounds of preventing non viable child being born. Closing Remarks. Pro at the end of the last round makes the point. .. "It doesn’t follow, however, just because we agree to make marriage of convenience illegal that other forms should be legal. "Pro is right, but that wasn't my argument, cause freedom is our default, the presumption of liberty when considering such matters and absent a good reason to make gay mariage illegal then the resolution that gay marriage should be illegal has not be affirmed. I submit that Pro did not provide a good reason to make gay marriage illegal.