Gay Marriage should be Illegal (5)

ResolutionGay Marriage should be IllegalBurden of ProofPro will affirm the resolutionCon will oppose the resolutionNO VIDEO LINKS !!!PROBLEMS ?If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.Round 4Round 4 is the last round, no new material or arguments are to be presented in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.Definitions:Gay = "Gay is a word that commonly refers to a male or female whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex."Marriage = Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.Gay Marriage =(Obviously we are talking about people of the same sex who want to marry each other hence the term "Gay Marriage", also known as Same Sex Marriage.Illegal = Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited by law.Opening ArgumentHere is my first argument, lets call it the you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argument.P1) Freedom is our defaultP2) You need a good reason to make something IllegalC) 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 illegalPremise 1) Freedom is our defaultWhat I mean by saying that freedom is our default is that there is and should be a presumption in favour of liberty when considering what should and should not be illegal. The presumption in favour of liberty is the cornerstone of Western societies."This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle(Gaus, 1996: 162-166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom, especially through coercive means. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens. " [1]The alternative would be that freedom is NOT our default. If freedom was not our default then you couldn't even go to the bathroom or make a sandwich until it had been justified that you should be allowed to do so.Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalI suppose we could just have rules based on the whims of a king or tyrant, but I doubt Pro will argue against this premise. Mill too argued that ‘the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition" [1]The 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 illegalThe State & the Harm Principle"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]"According to the harm principle, if gay marriage doesn't cause harm to others, then there is no grounds to make it illegal. If Pro agrees freedom is our default when considering these matters, and you need a good reason to make something illegal then Pro will have to provide a good reason to make gay marriage illegal. Until then the resolution is not affirmed.I look foward to Pros opening argument.Sources [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...