Gay Marriage should be Illegal (6)

I realized my opponent has made his case entirely on the basis that there is a law in which states gay couples can not marry. I asked him to provide proof of this law's existance and he has not. He merely states "A law exists that..." but I looked and can not find such law. Failing to provide evidence of this law or specific code of that law, I assert that there is no such law. This assertment can only be disproven with evidence and the code of that law. So, for now, it stands that there is no law forbidding gays from marrying. My opponent states, "A law exists or a law is proposed which prevents two people of the same sex getting married. This is clearly a "limit" on freedom. The alternative would be that freedom is not our default. This alternative has never been argued for by Pro." That is correct. I agree that freedom is our default, but the freedom is not being infringed upon because there is NO LAW stating gays can't marry. My opponent has 2 stances. One asserting a law exists that prevents marriage and the other that they purposefully worded marriage to exclude them. With the second stance, he contradicts the first, for if there was a law, his case would be much stronger. But I am going to stress and assert that there is no such law this entire round. Premise 2: Good reason to make something illegal Illegal is defined as "1.Contrary to or forbidden by law, esp. criminal law" by (http://www.google.com...). We agreed that this would not be a criminal case, so that is invalid. Furthermore, I assert that there is no such law currently as to making it illegal in the sense of criminality or otherwise. There is only requirements for the definition of marriage, and those not meeting the requirements (gays and kin) can not get married or fault the government for creating a definition that excludes a minority party. My opponent wants to reword marriage to include gays. But what about necrophiliacs? This excludes them as well because they do not meet the qualifications for it. They aren't harming anyone either, so they should be included, right? No, it is just simply put that that is not the definition of marriage. My opponent asserts with the State and Harm Principal that freedom is infringed on the basis of a law that prevents gays from marrying. Again, I failed to research evidence of such law and no law has thusly been presented. Therefore, the State and Harm Principal does not apply. I do not think gay marriage will harm others, by the way, and is not my stance. My stance is that there is no harm in it's entirety because there's no law against gays restricting them, just a definition of marriage, that also excludes kin, pedofiles, and necrophiliacs. Opponent states, "You need more than the law its self to justify its existence. Pro doesn't seem to argue against this." That's because there IS NO LAW stating they can't get married. I agree with the point, but disagree that there is such law. The more I read, the more I realize my opponent has built everything on this law, so I'm going to repeat over in this paragraph on Defining Marriage argument in the previous round: My opponent quoted me out of context when he said I said, "..."Defense of Marriage Act explicitly defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman." If he would have went on with my quote, I would have said, "the federal government can not regulate marriages and to give a stance of recogniton would be contradictory towards states where it is not legal" He didn't mention that part in appurtinization of my case. The main purpose of DOMA was to protect the states right to define and regulate marriage. As for your analogy of speeding, it would be impossible to cite every number above 120km, because numbers are infinite. So realistically we must summarize the numbers to include all of the above. If a driver is so inept that they think they can drive above a speed limit, key word, LIMIT, then they shouldn't be driving and they would not pass their licensed test. That test is administered by the government like marriage licenses. Opponent states: " Like wise it follows logically that if the law defines marriage as between a man and a woman then that means that a same sex couple can't get married. So here we have a law that results in a limit of freedom." It'd be impossible to list specifically all numbers past 100km, so to summarize all numbers, because numbers are infinite and it'd be impractical and impossible to list all numbers. My opponent closes with, "I find it worrying that Pro is hiding behind the law, but can't justify the law its self." There is no law stating they can't marry, there is only definition of marriage and to meet the definition there are qualifications which they do not meet so the government will not recognize an altered definition. My stance has not been entirely on the law, it is that no law exists to refuse gay marriage, only definition of marriage and the states' have the right, by law, to define marriage. CONCLUSION: 1) My opponent did not bring evidence of, when asked, a specific law or source stating gay marriage is a direct ban or illegal. Therefore, there is not gay marriage ban, no infringment of freedom, or harm. 2) My opponent has not provided proof, when asked, of a specific court case where there was a ruling in favor of a plaintiff accusing government of right infringement in where the court ruled in favor. 3) My opponent has not, when asked, provided proof of purpousful rewording explicitly to exclude gay and act on biased discrimination. 4) The Harm Principal- This does not apply because by definition it doesn't change the way a couple acts. Therefore, there is no harm. Thank you for this debate.