Gay Marriage should be Illegal (3)

Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultI don't think Pro is disagrees with this premise, Pro makes some remarks about marriage being a privileged and not a right but even if this accepted this doesn't refute the first premise. The alternative would be that freedom is NOT our default. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPro says. .. "Perhaps it doesn’t refute the premise but the premise is flawed in that gay marriage isn’t illegal as much as it’s not an allowed circumstance in most states"The first part of this sentence doesn't make sense where Pro says that gay marriage isn't illegal as much as its not allowed. Well what does it mean for something to be illegal ? Well at the start of the debate illegal was defined as. .. "Illegal = Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited by law. " Prohibited means not allowed by the way. Definition of Prohibited 1. Formally forbid (something) by law, rule, or other authority- laws prohibiting cruelty to animals2. Formally forbid a person or group from doing something- he is prohibited from being a director3. (of a fact or situation) Prevent (something); make impossible" [1]As such when Pro says that to not allow gay marriage in a legal context doesn't mean you are making it illegal is a contradiction in terms. 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 marriagePro informs us that marriage is currently regulated, well sure no argument there, but does this prove that gay marriage should be illegal ? I don't think so, consider this argument. .. .1) Marriage is regulated2) Therefore we should ban gay marriage1) Marriage is regulated2) Therefore we should ban interracial marriage. Both arguments are non sequiturs, you can accept the first premise but the conclusion doesn't follow from it. I would also point out the fact that there are places that ban gay marriage is not a good reason to ban gay marriage. There are some places that ban Christianity, 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. Marriage and procreationPro says. .. "Married partners are granted these benefits because the propagation of society is a compelling interest for the State. This is why laws tend to restrict marriage between couples unlikely to produce viable children"I am aware of no law that restricts marriage (at least in western civilization) to couples if they can't or are unlikely to produce "viable" children. I will ask Pro to explain what they are going on about here. The ability to have children is not a necessary requirement to be able to marry. The state and the harm principlePro says. .. "Privileges are set in law, inferred from other rights or take the form of “freedoms” as Con puts it. As a privilege, marriage can be denied based on the needs of the State. " & "The benefits mentioned in my initial argument (among possible others) garnered from this privilege should only be extended to those who would benefit the state by their union. "I don't accept that marriages should only be granted to those who are judged to be providing a benefit to the state and I don't think you should either. Remember under Pros argument here both gays and hetrosexuals can be denied marriage if they are not deemed as providing a benefit to the state. Rather than restrict marriage or anything for that matter cause its not deemed beneficial for the state we should only restrict something if it will result in "harm" as the harm principle says. .. "The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill first articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. "[2]"Marriage of conveniencePreviously Pro tried to ban gay marriage on the grounds that this could result in a marraige of convenience. But as I pointed out a marriage of convenience can also happen in a hetrosexual marriage, so according to Pros own rule we would have to ban both gay and hetrosexual marriage. Pro now says. .. "I would argue that marriage should be banned for everyone that has a “marriage of convenience” based on the benefits derived from the State making it in the State’s interest to do so. " & "So, yes, even in heterosexual marriages certain restrictions should and do apply. And I still believe that either homo or hetero couples that do this violate the sanctity of marriage. "Even if we accept Pros now new modified rule, this doesn't result in the banning of gay marriage, it only says that certain gay marriages and hetrosexual marriages should be banned. Well for the sake of argument we can agree to Pros rule here and thus allow gay marriages & hetrosexual marraiges that are not deemed a "marriage of convenience". I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://www.google.com.au...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...