Gay Marriage should be Illegal (2)

Rebuttal"Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultBy saying freedom is our default, is that we start with an innocent till proven guilty assumption, or in this case, freedom or legality is given as an assumption until proven other wise. As John Sturat [sic] Mill has written... "the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition…. The a priori assumption is in favour of freedom…’ [1]"This is flawed. Simply stating that freedom is a given holds no particular strength or significance, nor does the appeal to authority. JSM's statement is unqualified and simply shifts the burden of proof."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. The alternative would be to claim that we don't need a good reason to make something or keep something illegal."This is invalidated when I make an argument, assuming I can argue that it's "good"."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 illegal"This is essentially a restatement of the second premise and it is also invalidated when I make a "good" argument.Opening ArgumentsReligionMost major religions are against gay marriage. Claiming otherwise, as I've experienced many Christians to do, is hypocrisy. Legal gay marriage will anger God if any of these religions is on the mark. Is it worth it?The Purpose of the State1. The state should strive to fulfill the best interests of the society it governs/represents.2. The state's power resides, significantly if not mainly, in its role as a regulatory body.3. Thus, the state should regulate society to encourage that which is beneficial and prevent/minimise that which isn't.Now, we must determine what is beneficial to society, and what isn't.Is Gay Marriage Beneficial?No. It does not produce children, so society as a whole will gain nothing. Con's pre-emptive strike against this argument will be covered by a later point.State Endorsed MarriageThe state should, as stated in a previous point, encourage what it sees to be beneficial to society. It has also been stated that gay marriage is not beneficial, which will be explained further in the next point. Thus, the state should only endorse (authorise) marriages that it considers will produce viable citizens (good children). It need not prosecute/persecute/ban homosexuals and their marriages. By not authorising them, they are considered illegal under the definitions provided pre-debate by Con, affirming the resolution without the violation of his first premise.EugenicsCongenital defects could be almost wiped out through state regulation of marriage. To take a leaf from Con's book regarding authority, Plato advocated a eugenic system in The Republic, and Plato's generally acknowledged as dead clever. Not only could congenital defects be almost wiped out, but the human race could be made stronger, faster, smarter... Better.Humanity could be easily improved with regards to health. Obesity has been linked to genes, and is a major issue in the West. Thalasemia, cystic fibrosis and many other diseases could be prevented through genetic screening. Attributes like height could also be improved, with 85% heritability shown by some studies.Most importantly, intelligence is linked to genetics. Studies have estimated the heritability of IQ (our best simple measure of intelligence) to be up to 90%, with 85% the best estimate [1]. It's a safe assumption that intelligent parents would have at least the capacity to raise intelligent children, again leading to a more intelligent population. Thus, children could be born more intelligent and healthier.This policy would be most effective if the right to have children were to be restricted to state-endorsed marriages, which should also be done as it is in the best interests of society as a whole. Thus, gay marriage should not be authorised by the state, as it will not produce any children at all.DefenceI expect Con to argue that restricting the "right" to have children is a horrendous violation of freedom. I ask of Con, which is more important: the right of a person to have children with whomever they please or the right of a baby to be born without an easily avoidable disability, to be born with the best possible chance in life, to be born healthy, intelligent and unshackled by the restraints of his/her parent's inferior genetics? Which is more important: the freedom to have children or the right of children to be born free?I look forward to Con's response.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...