Gay Marriage should be Illegal (6)

Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultPro mentions a difference between civil and criminal legalities, but I don't see how this offers a challenge to this premise. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalI don't think Pro argues against this premise. 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 and the harm principlePro mentions the difference between civil and criminal but how does that refute the harm principle ? The harm principle applies to all laws, its makes no distinction between civil and criminal. Pro says. .. "However, my opponent is objectifying nonrecognition of marriage as harmful and portraying it into a legal criminal outfit. ". .. &. .. "Since the state does not interfere with the relationship and operates under the basis of legal definition and code, it does not legally harm the couple"I think this is a misunderstanding of the harm principle. Even if it was the case that no harm resulted from denying gay marriage that is NOT what the harm principle is going on about. As the harm principle says. .. ""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. "The state is not justified in banning something even though it won't result in any harm, the state can only limit freedom in order to stop harm from happening. The state here is denying one person to marry another person, and cause there is no threat by letting them do so, the state is not justified in denying that marriage. You need more than the law its self to justify its existence. Pro says. .. 'What my opponent is fighting for is legal recognition of homosexual couples,"I hate to be picky, but that's not my position. My position is my opening argument, which is freedom is our default and that you need a good reason to make something illegal. If there is no good reason to make gay marriage illegal, then it should not be illegal, that's my position. It should be obvious but if something is not illegal then its legal by default. Pro says. .. "there is the law, which my opponent seems to hold in high reguard. "The only law I would hold in high regard is one that can be justified, it matters not whether its in the constitution, criminal law, civil law or was written by some one on two tables of stone after hearing a voice upon at the top of a mountain. Pro says. .. "Legally, the state retains the right to recognize marriages, and the Defense of Marriage Act explicitly defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. Government has the right to recognize or not recognize relationships, but still do not have the right to (dis)organize relationships. "Its true that a law can and does exist that ban gay marriage, but you need a good reason for that law. The law its self is insufficient justification for its own existence. Consider the example of when interracial marriage was illegal, some one might argue well a good reason that we should not allow interracial marriage is because their is a law against interracial marriage. You need more than just the law its self to justify its existence, you need a good reason for it. Defining marriage to exclude gay marriageYou can define marriage in such a way to exclude marriage to people, for example you can define marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same race and exclude interracial marriage or define marriage as between a blonde man and a blonde women and exclude red heads from marrying. This is why I find it dubious when Pro says. .. "There is no law illegalizing or saying a gay couple can't get married, there is only definitions for marriage. " Even though it may not be EXPLICIT in the banning of gay marriage its IMPLICIT in banning gay marriage. Take for example that Defence of Marriage Act that Pro has reffered too which says in section 3. .. "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. " [1]What is the purpose of defining marriage in such a way ? clearly it was to exclude and prevent gay marriage. As an article from wikipedia explains. .. "DOMA's Section 3 prevents the federal government from recognizing the validity of same-sex marriages. [1]As such, in an indirect way gay marriage is banned by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman just like defining marriage between a man and a woman of the same race bans interracial marriage in an indirect way. The government can determine who can and can't get marriedEven if we accept this, it still doesn't refute that freedom is our default and that you need a good reason to make something illegal, whether that illegality comes through explicitly or implicitly. Making a distinction between civil and criminal law doesn't refute this. CONCLUSION:1) Freedom- Gay couples have right to be together, then don't stop them from getting married and remove any obstacles that prevent this.2) Good Reason For Making It Illegal- The fact that a law exists that bans gay marriage is not a good reason to ban gay marriage, nor does making the distinction between civil and criminal provide a good reason.3) Harm Principal- It has not being shown that harm will result if gay marriage is allowed, thus the state has no justification for banning it.4) State has right to regulate license distribution. This right of the state doesn't refute that you need a good reason to ban gay marriage. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;