Gay Marriage should be Illegal (6)

Thank you for the debate. In Round 2, my opponent recognized my difference in legalities of civil and criminal. This is what I've been fighting for. He did not argue my mentioning that if something is not legal, it is illegal. Illegal (since we are arguing civil legality), as defined by Freedictionary.com, "unauthorized/prohibited by a code of official or accepted rules." I have debated this entire match that homosexual marriage does not comply with the requirements (rules) to acquire a state recognized marriage. I would like the audience to note this entire time I have supported the resolution. My opponent says I never argued Premise 1: I did, but I argued in favor in the previous round stating " 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." If he could find one case of biased judgement by finding a law (which I asked) or a court ruling (which I asked) that stated gays were being discriminated against, then I would have conceeded this debate. However, my opponent failed to present both pieces of evidence when asked and my argument still stands. I support Premise 1, that freedom is our default, but continue to assert no freedom is being infringed upon. Furthermore he stated, " "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." He has not proven the existance of this law, therefore has not proven the limit on freedom, further supporting my case. With Premise 2, my opponent says I never argued that I don't need a good reason to make it illegal. It is because I also agreed with the premise, but asserted that there is no banning law. I stated, " 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 necrophiliac analogy was not a Slippery Slope argument, it was a comparison to gays, not an inevitable future. Furthermore, my opponent is wrong when he says the the premises, harm principal, and good reason to restricting freedom isn't based on the law, they are applied. If they are parts to support law or reasoning of it, it makes it a part of law. For example, a gun-stock may not be a gun, but it is part of it. The analogy depicts the supporting parts (i.e. Harm Principal) may not be the law, but they are part of it. They are not nessicary for it to work, but are required to make it more accurate as a whole. However, you can not attach a stock without a gun. E.g. you can't have parts to support a law when there's no law. My opponent, I'll state again, did not provide proof of the law, therefore his points subsequent as an attachment to the law are invalid, because there is no law that he could present when asked twice. I shall continue though, to rebut. The Harm Principal: The source you stated says his is the sole definiton of the principal "that no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others". Like I said, there is no infringement to the 'free acts of others', so there is no Harm Principal to be applied in this case; the definition does not apply. You do realize, though, that gay couples can marry in every state? It's just that they will not be given a marriage license for the state to recognize their marriage as legitimate. You stated as defining marriage " Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship" They can get married so my assertment that you're trying to reword marriage for states to recognize it is still standing. A marriage license just is for public record and some government benifets along with tax. Think of it as a personal trainer. A guy/girl is in great shape and can really help people get in shape. But that doesn't mean he/she deserves a license. There are qualifications. They can still practice it independently, but the state will not grant her a personal trainer license for public business/record just because she's good enough to deserve it. There are qualifications which she doesn't meet. FINAL CONCLUSION: My opponent has not proven the following when asked: 1) A specific law or source stating gay marriage is a direct ban. 2) A specific court case which ruled in favor of a plaintiff accusing government of right infringement. 3) Purpousfl rewording explicitly to exclude gays and act on biased discrimination. Furthermore, the following has been proven by me (THESE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT NOTES OF THE DEBATE!!!) 1) Since there is no specific law stating they can't be married, and my opponent defined all his arguments of applications to a law, his arguments are not relative to the case. Reason being is because there's no law for them to be applied, and are thusly invalid. 2) I have assereted that gay marriage be illegal in the sense that it is not permitted or recognized as a legal, defined marriage. Therefore, it is and should be illegal. I claim that this is not a law, but a qualification. Therefore, my opponents arguments can not be applied, since they are applications to law. My opponent is the one urging the change of status quo, and therefore has the burdon of proof. With all of his arguments being invalid, there is no reason to change the status quo, and I have won with the Burdon of Clash. Thank you for the debate.