Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Thank you again to Con for his rebuttal to my argument. I will now make my own.Contention 1) Freedom is our defaultI didn't exactly agree with this. I don't think freedom is our default, per se. While we do enjoy the freedom of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," that is not an absolute freedom. While we have freedom of speech, it is not an absolute freedom. And while we have freedom to marry (which the Constitution does not guarantee, by the way), we do not have the freedom to marry anyone we want. So my contention is that having a freedom does not mean having that freedom absolutely. There are limits.Contention 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalI misunderstood the contention from earlier. However, if something is already illegal (such as same-sex marriage or marijuana), then you need a good reason to legalize it. This country has defined marriage as between one man and one woman. If that is to change, the opposing side bears the burden of proof for why it should be legalized, there is no burden of proof for why it should remain illegal."Just because it's the law doesn't make it right."Agreed. However, even though it's the law doesn't make it wrong. You still have to show why it's wrong.I was not making that argument. However, what I was saying was that if this should be changed, you have to prove it. You can't say "it's automatically wrong because it disagrees with my sensibilities or values." There are only a few states that currently allow same-sex marriages. If same-sex marriages were approved of and supported by our federal government, the Defense of Marriage Act would not have passed. If we are to suddenly change the paradigm of our nation and allow same-sex marriages in all states, it must be proven why we should allow this.Interracial marriage is not the same as homosexual marriage. The difference is race versus sexuality. There is nothing moral or amoral about belonging to a particular race. Even though the Germans were responsible for the Holocaust, only the Germans in question should be held responsible. This does not mean that all Germans are evil.However, sexuality has to do with morality. Otherwise all types of sexuality would be embraced and not just particular ones. You can't say someone can only be "so much Mexican" before they become immoral. However, you can say that certain types of sexuality are immoral when other types are acceptable. Even if someone feels they were "born that way," or that their feelings are natural, they still are not allowed.Your contentions have been refuted. While we may enjoy freedoms, our freedoms are not absolute. If freedom is our default, absolute freedom is not. There are limitations to our freedoms, and marriage is no different. Also, if something is illegal, you need good reason to make it legal, not to keep it illegal. You bear the burden of proof in that.Contention 3) 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 illegalI see a couple of issues I can take with this statement. First, if freedom is our default (contention one) then the illegal act in question must not have strong support for why it should be enjoyed. Second, if we must have good reason for making something illegal (contention two), then that must mean since it's illegal there was good reason for making it so.I have already shown why interracial marriage and homosexual marriage are not comparable. See my argument to contention two."If gay marriage was allowed, heterosexuals would be just as legally entitled to marry the same sex "This is irrelevant. The fact remains that the only people who would want to marry a member of the same sex are homosexuals. They are seeking special privileges under the guise of "equal rights." Heterosexuals would have no desire to marry a person of the same sex, so really the only people who benefit from it would be homosexuals.You are also misrepresenting my logic. Nice strawman. Homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals do. Homosexuals can still marry a member of the opposite gender if they're so interested in the legal benefits that come with it. They have equal rights. What they are pushing for is legislation for which only they would benefit, ergo they are seeking special privileges. If someone falls in love with their cousin, they are not allowed to marry. If someone falls in love with a member of the same sex, there is no reason why they should be allowed to marry.Regarding the argument about procreation:1) Homosexuals don't need to be married to express their love for each other. I fail to see where this logic is relevant to the debate.2) This is also irrelevant, as this argument doesn't show a reason why homosexuality is a benefit to society, it just tries to get around it by a loophole. Gay men cannot get pregnant, and gay women cannot get pregnant from their partner. They can only reproduce by unnatural means (e.g. artificial insemination). Homosexual relationships go against nature. You have not shown otherwise.3) I never said marriage should be restricted to only couples who can reproduce. Grandma can still get married because it's legal to do so. Heterosexual marriages are legal and allowed. So Grandma Mabel can still get married to her beau. She may be past her childrearing years, but she was once a fertile young vixen who was able to reproduce. And again, if a couple is infertile, there are still means they can use in order to get pregnant (such as fertility drugs) so that an infertile couple can reproduce with each other. The question here is not what is best for society, but what is legal. Since heterosexual marriages are legal, they cannot be denied to anyone (provided they're of legal age).Suffice it to say, these are not selective excuses to ban marriage.Slippery Slope?I should point out that I never made the slippery slope argument. I never said that legalizing gay marriage would lead to legalizing incest, polygamy, etc. What I said was if you're going to legalize gay marriage, there's no reason not to legalize these other things. If you're all about fairness for gays, why wouldn't you be about fairness to those who practice incest, polygamy, etc? Why do you only think gay marriage should be legalized out of fairness, but we shouldn't be fair to others?Now understand, I'm not condoning any of these practices, just examining why they should be kept illegal if gay marriage is made legal.1) Children get married in other cultures all the time. In fact, in Nevada an underage girl can get married to the father if she gets pregnant. So obviously children can get married.2) Children can consent. Teenagers have sex all the time. Are you going to say that every case of teenage pregnancy was a case of rape if the father is underage as well? Is 18 really a magical age where children suddenly understand what sex is all about, or does it just take a good sex ed class to help them understand what they're getting into? As far as I know, states differ on the age of sexual consent (I'm open to being wrong here, and would be interested to know if I am).3) Why should interspecies be banned from marriage or sex? You haven't given a reason why we should ban it.4) Why should incest and incest marriage be banned? Again, you didn't give a reason why they should be.As you can see, Con only gave a reason for two of the examples to be banned, but not for the other two. And the reasons he gave aren't very strong. If gay marriage should be allowed, then there must be good reasons for why these other forms of sexuality should not be allowed. Otherwise, they should all be allowed.I look forward to Con's rebuttal.