Gay Marriage should be Illegal (2)

Rebuttal"The negation of this premise is that freedom is not our default. Previously I pointed out the dilemma of accepting this negation as you couldn't go to the toilet or that Pro himself wouldn't be granted the freedom to argue against gay marriage as a prior. Pro had no answer to this dilemma of accepting the negation of this premise. "I'm tired of repeating myself. I do not have any moral right (freedom) to argue against gay marriage. Freedom as a moral right does not exist. Con has not given any evidence or substantial argument for freedom's existence as a moral right. If freedom is then merely a description, it is our default. However, it is absolutely worthless. Defaults should not be maintained because they are defaults. "As Pro has decided to use illegal means lack of authorization I refer back to premise two which says P2) You need a good reason to make something illegal, or as Pros interpretation P2) You need a good reason not to authorize something. "That premise is arguable, but this is irrelevant as I have have given a good reason. "Pro wants the government to accept a flawed logic which Pro them self does not accept, that being its flawed to make something illegal just in case God might get angry if you don't. "Yes. "There is no logical contradiction in affirming democracy while also affirming that just because a majority say something doesn't make it true. This is a false dilemma by Pro. "But there is a logical contradiction in insisting that a law should be passed despite the majority of the human race being nominally/theoretically against it. "Pro doesn't address the problem here"Yes, I do. This is a beneficial activity. The state would thus have no reason to prevent it. "We still have the problem here of what happens to Pro and his great debating skills when the state doesn't think its "beneficial" for Pro to debate. "It is beneficial. If the state thought otherwise, it would be its duty to prevent me doing so. "My argument is as such that the premise that the state should NOT prevent something if its not beneficial is more plausible over pros premise that the state should prevent something because its not beneficial. "Con has not argued that time should not be wasted. Con thus accepts that time should be managed by the state. "But as I pointed out before this is not a good reason to make gay marriage illegal/not authorize it, as it is not necessary to make gay marriage illegal in order to further the goals of eugenics. " Con has repeatedly ignored my arguments. Marriage should be used as a tool by the state to encourage responsible breeding. "I think Pro misunderstood my remark here, I was speaking in the broad sense when I said that. .. "2) Gay marriage could possibly encourage non promiscuity, commitment and a more stable relationship between gays. This refutes that gay marriage can't result in anything beneficial. "Con has not explained why he believes that gay marriage may result in these things. "If we accept the first half of this premise (since I argued against the 2nd half) if gay marriage can possibly result in more stable gay relationships then the state should encourage it. "Despite the list of dropped arguments I left for Con, he has still not answered them. Why are stable gay relationships in any way beneficial to society? Arguments Dropped by Con1. Why are stable homosexual relationships beneficial to society?2. Why does Con suppose that marriage will reduce promiscuity and instability in gay relationships?3. The difference between not endorsing gay marriages and banning them.4. Why Con believes that gay marriage would improve the gene pool.5. Why not endorsing gay marriages may anger (the Abrahamic) God.6. Why careful state endorsement of only beneficial marriages is not a good way to implement a eugenic policy.7. Time is our most valuable commodity and non-beneficial activities are a waste of it.8. Why freedom should be supposed to be a moral right. Closing RemarksCon has not answered my argument with any coherency. He spent most of the debate attacking something I did not argue for, and ignored outright most of what I did argue for. Con accepted eugenics. He did not argue at any point that marriage was not an appropriate tool for the encouragement of desirable breeding. Therefore, he has not answered my argument, at all. I thank Con for the debate and for his general promptness of reply.