Gay Marriage should be Illegal (6)

Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultPro never argued for the alternative which would be that freedom is NOT our default. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPro never argued for the alternative 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 illegalPro says. .. "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. "Utterly false, premise 1 & 2 is not based on the law. The harm principle is not based on the law. The argument that you need a good reason to restrict freedom is not based on law. They are applied to the law. Pro says. .. "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. "Bit late to try a slippery slope argument now isn't it ? If we allow gay marriage I guess we have to allow necrophiliac marriage eh ? I could merely retort harm will result if we allow necrophilia marriage, but I don't have to justify this cause the topic of the debate is gay marriage and you as the Pro are tying to affirm that gay marriage should be illegal as the resolution says. The State & the Harm principlePro says. .. "The Harm Principal- This does not apply because by definition it doesn't change the way a couple acts. Therefore, there is no harm. "How many times do I have repeat the harm principle ? The harm principle does NOT say that a restriction is ok, as long as there is no change in behavior for those who are being restricted. It clearly talks about the justification needed for putting restrictions on people. Defining marriage to exclude gay marriage and the requirements/definition of marriage in lawPro keeps trying to argue that cause there is no law that says literally something like "thou shalt not allow gay marriage" that they can some how get around my various arguments. This is false and I will show why. Consider an example where the law defined marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race. Now imagine that some one such as my self points out, well this clearly restricts an interracial race couple from marrying, and I point out that you need a good reason for this restriction. Now what if the racist was to turn around and say, no we don't, cause there is no law that says an interracial marriage is banned. Would you buy such an argument ? What if the racist was to defend this argument along the lines of. .. "My stance is that there is no harm in it's entirety because there's no law against Interracial couples restricting them, just a definition of marriage, that also excludes kin, pedofiles, and necrophiliacs. "Would you know buy into this argument ? its clearly obvious that defining marriage in law in this way clearly puts a restriction on people, in this case it restricts an interracial couple from marrying, just like defining marriage between a man and a woman restricts a same sex couple from marrying. So, seeing this restriction results, I want to know, what good reason has Pro given us to justify this restriction ? none. Closing RemarksThe resolution of the debate was "Gay marriage should be illegal", and Pro didn't give us any good reason why gay marriage should be illegal.