Gay Marriage should be Illegal

Slippery SlopeI reiterate, I have not made a slippery slope argument. A slippery slope would be saying that if gay marriage were legalized, then polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc. would also be legalized. [1] I have made no such claim. I have only shown how my views are more consistent by showing that if you legalize gay marriage, then in fairness you would have no reason to reject other forms of marriage that there is no real good reason for denying. There is good reason for denying gay marriage, so there is cause to keep it illegal. Also, I have looked for good reason and haven't found it, and Con certainly has not offered any good reasons to allow it in this debate."I gave some possible reasons that can be accepted that would justify the ban of the other things pro mentions but not ban gay marriage."You have not. Allow me to refresh your memory. From your round two argument:"1) Children can't get married (This would ban children being married but wouldn't exclude gays)"I have shown that they can. In Nevada, an underage girl can get married to the father if she is pregnant. Also, children in other countries get married all the time."2) Consent must be freely given (This would ban pedophiles raping or forcing the marriage of children, but wouldn't exclude gays from marrying)"Again, other countries have arranged marriages where the couple has no choice in the matter."3) Inter species should be banned from marriage or sex (This would prevent bestiality, but wouldn't includes gays as they are of the same species)4) Incest and incest marriage should be banned (This wouldn't exclude gays from marrying)"You have given no reasons at all to back these up.Hence, I extend my arguments that there is no good reason to deny these types of marriage, since you gave no reason to deny two of them and you did not answer my objections to your first two points.I have already shown that gay marriage is not comparable to interracial marriage. It is also not comparable to denying women the right to vote, as they were being discriminated based on gender. Being a certain gender is not a moral issue, just like being a certain race is not a moral issue. As I have illustrated, and you have refused to even try to refute, gay marriage is a moral issue. There are good intellectual reasons to deny it, and even if you accept it, you will likely find another form of marriage to be distasteful.Contention 1) Freedom is our defaultI am not having a hard time understanding anything. Whether or not freedom is our default, that doesn't mean we have absolute freedom. If freedom of speech is our default, there are certain types of speech that are not allowed (e.g. hate speech). If freedom of marriage is our default, there are certain types of marriage not allowed (e.g. adult to minor, polygamy, gay marriage).Contention 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal"That's just awful."Why? Because it's damaging to your case? Does not our own Supreme Court cite precedent when making a ruling? Now we see that Con has resorted to ad hominem attack to try and make his case.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.I have not made a strawman here. You may not have argued that we have absolute freedom, but neither have you argued that there is good reason to make gay marriage legal. You have not fulfilled the burden of proof.Here, you are making a strawman argument against me. I have not stated that disagreement makes something a "moral" issue. There is no morality involved in being a particular race, otherwise slavery would still be legal. You cannot make an intellectual case about belonging to a certain race or a certain gender. However, you can make an intellectual case against a particular type of sexuality (e.g. pedophilia, homosexuality, polygamy, etc.).I also have not made a non sequitur. Con, again, has misrepresented my position. I will put it in a syllogism here:1) We can't marry anyone we want2) There is no good reason to allow homosexuals to marry; in fact, there is good reason not to encourage it3) Therefore, gay marriage should be illegalHomosexuals and NatureHomosexuality is not comparable to aviation. Airplanes were built to aid humanity. They allow us to travel great distances in a relatively short period of time. They help us to fight wars (which is dubious, of course, but without airplanes we couldn't win wars and we'd be mostly helpless). However, homosexuality actually hinders humanity because homosexuals cannot procreate naturally.I said that Granny would be able to marry because it was legal for her to do so, since heterosexual marriage is legal. It doesn't matter if Gramps and Granny can procreate. They are past their childbearing years. Heterosexual marriage should be encouraged because our species must continue.My opponent, again, misrepresents my position. I will fix the syllogism for him:1) In order to continue, we must replace the elderly who are dying off2) Therefore, heterosexual relationships should be encouraged.Sure, heterosexuals can produce children both inside and outside of marriage. But homosexuals don't have to be married to express their love for each other. Your example is moot.Special rightsNotice that my opponent has altogether ignored my analogy, which shows why allowing everyone to do something that would really only benefit one group of people is granting them special rights. The United States has no control over what other countries legislate, and there are many Americans who believe we should keep our noses out of other countries' business. I haven't made my mind up on that issue, but that's really irrelevant because other countries make legislations based on their morality. Their laws have no basis on ours.Closing remarksIt is clear that that Con really has no argument for supporting gay marriage, and his entire argument rested on strawmanning me left and right, and throwing in an ad hominem attack or two. I have shown sufficient reason for not allowing gay marriage, and many of my arguments have gone uncontested by my opponent.Society should pass laws for the greater good, not to make a small minority of the population happy. Legalizing gay marriage would benefit no one but homosexuals. Heterosexual relationships are what will ensure our race (not just Americans, but humanity as a whole) will continue on. I have nothing against homosexuals as people. They deserve the same basic human rights as all of us. Gay marriage is not comparable to slavery or women being treated as property, because those are a violation of basic human rights. Marriage is not a basic human right. It is not even guaranteed in our Constitution.I don't have to tell you how to vote. Vote based on whose arguments were stronger, not just based on which side you agree with.I thank Con for issuing this challenge, and I hope that both sides have given you something to think about.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;