Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Again, I thank Con for their rebuttal. As it stands, some of my contentions remain uncontested, as I will show in a moment. Con has also not offered compelling reason for why something which is currently illegal, should be made legal.Contention 1) Freedom is our defaultI did not agree completely, and I have not backtracked. My position on this was the same in my first round argument as it was in my second round argument. While we do enjoy freedoms, we do not enjoy unlimited freedom We do not have absolute freedom of speech, neither do we have absolute right to marry. You have not offered compelling reason to support same-sex union and have not sufficiently argued against my reasons.Contention 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalNumber one, Con has not shown any sort of precedent for why we need a good reason to make something illegal. Alcohol is legal, yet marijuana is not, however both have the same effects on a person. The only reason I know of that marijuana is illegal is because the government can't tax it. That's not a good enough reason to keep something illegal, especially when alcohol, which is responsible for drunk driving deaths and for liver failure, is legal. "There much be good enough reason" is not an argument for making something legal. You have not shown me why having gay marriage legal would be a benefit to anyone, other than some people would get to marry members of the same sex. That only benefits those attracted to the same sex. There are other ways to express your love than getting married.I fail to see how another country banning Christian preaching is in any way comparable to banning gay marriage. Laws are based on morality, and if a country is hostile to a particular religion (e.g. Christianity) then of course it will be illegal. This country was built on religious freedom, so we are free to accept any faith we deem the most reliable."...imagine a Nazi argument,..."I'm afraid I must invoke Godwin's Law here. [1] Comparing the banning of gay marriage is not comparable to Nazi, Germany. The Nazis were massacring the Jews, which was an extreme violation of their basic human rights. Marriage is not a basic human right. Even if you accept gay marriage, I can almost guarantee you think some other form of marriage is distasteful.Contention 3) 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 has not gone without challenge. I, in fact, challenged it quite thoroughly in my second round argument. Rather than address it, Con has decided to ignore it altogether.We do not have absolute freedom. Also, we need good reason to keep something legal, not make it illegal. See my analogy regarding marijuana above in this argument.I have not agreed with my opponent's contentions, in theory. It's a interesting leap to take "we don't have absolute freedom" and make it agree with "we must have good reason to make something illegal." The fact that we don't have absolute freedom, itself, indicates that there are things which will be illegal since our freedoms are not absolute. Even though we have freedom of speech, we cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater or threaten the president. While we have freedom to marry, we cannot just marry anyone we want. There are limits.Just because it's the law doesn't make it right."Pro agrees here, and is also a way of summarising my contentions."What does that prove? It may summarize your contentions, but you haven't proven that this particular instance is one in which the law is wrong."The short answer of why its wrong to ban gay marriage, is because there isn't a good reason to ban gay marriage, and without that reason the banning doesn't have sufficient justification for its existence."I disagree. There are good reasons for banning gay marriage, as I have shown, and you have not contested those. My arguments stand unchallenged.The morality of sexualityMy contention here stands unchallenged. Belonging to a particular race is not a moral issue. It's not immoral to be too Mexican. However, sexuality is based on morality, and everyone has different opinions on what sexuality is acceptable and what sexuality is wrong. You have not addressed this.I have given good, secular reasons for denying gay marriage, which I will give again here since you have not properly addressed them:1) We cannot just marry anyone we want. If I fall in love with my cousin, I cannot marry her. Just like no one should be able to marry a member of the same gender.2) Gay marriage goes against nature. Homosexuals cannot naturally procreate with each other. They cannot raise a biological family together. In order for humanity to continue, we must replace the elderly who are dying off.Special rights"As I said before the allowing of gay marriage would allow hetrosexuals to marry the the same gender too..."I have, in fact, contested this. The only people who would benefit from this would be homosexuals. Heterosexuals would not benefit from making gay marriage legal, therefore they are seeking special privileges. Let me give you an analogy:Suppose there's a Jewish boss who makes any form of religious expression punishable by firing, but you can wear a yarmulka to work and have a menorah by your desk if you so choose. Is this acceptable? You could argue that anyone in the office is free to wear a yarmulka or place a menorah by their desk, but only the Jewish people would want to. This rule only benefits Jews in the office, even though anyone else would be free to follow suit.In the same way, homosexuals are seeking special rights because they're fighting for legislation that, at the heart of it, only benefits them.1) Con's first point is irrelevant. Marriage promotes the natural order of procreation. In order to keep our species going heterosexual relationships are required. Marriage gives incentive to do so.2) I did not fully understand the point he's making here. He seems to be agreeing with me here.The analogy Con gave, to give me my "just desserts," falls flat on many levels. There would never be a world in which only homosexuals were allowed to marry, unless (assuming there is intelligent life out there) that species could reproduce asexually or through homosexual union. Our species cannot, therefore gay marriages should not be encouraged.Con now attempts to strawman me by creating a fictional "world" he sees me creating, but in reality this world exists only in his head. I do not advocate anyone being treated unfairly. I have already said I believe homosexuals are people deserving of the same basic human rights we all are. Marriage is not a basic human right.If there was a Godwin's Law for slavery, I would invoke that here, too. Slavery was a violation of their basic human rights to not be treated as property (i.e. freedom). This is not comparable to gay marriage.Marriage only allowed to childrearing couples1) Con supports his logic but fails to refute my argument.2) Con fails to refute this argument.3) I brought it up to show how homosexuality goes against nature. Heterosexual marriage is legal, so anyone, fertile or infertile, can take advantage of it.Slippery SlopeCon is making another strawman argument by claiming I am making a slippery slope argument. [2] I have made no such argument, I was only showing how my view is more consistent than my opponent's. He has not addressed any of my reasons here, so I extend my arguments that there is no good reason to ban any other form of marriage if you accept gay marriage. I am not making the argument that they will eventually become legal, just that, in fairness, we have no reason to continue to deny them.I look forward to our final round, and thank my opponent for a thought-provoking debate.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;