Gay Marriage should be Illegal (2)

Defending you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argumentPremise 1) Freedom is our defaultPro makes the charge that I have committed the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority. . .. "Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative" [1]The only thing I was appealing to was the argument summarized by John Mill, not the person himself. I was merely trying to give attribution/citation of what someone else had said. As Wikipedia says. .. "A prime purpose of a citation is intellectual honesty: to attribute prior or unoriginal work and ideas to the correct sources, and to allow the reader to determine independently whether the referenced material supports the author's argument in the claimed way. " [2]Pro says. .. "Simply stating that freedom is a given holds no particular strength or significance,"Oh but it does, the alternative to having freedom as our default would be that freedom is NOT our default. If this view was accepted philosophical and/or legally you couldn't even go to the toilet unless you provided some sort of justification for it. Everything would be banned until proved other wise. Pro has not provided any argument that we should reject the assumption of freedom and accept the assumption of non freedom. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPro says. .. "This is invalidated when I make an argument, assuming I can argue that it's "good". "Actually you seeking to provide a good reason to ban gay marriage is you validating this premise. Pro later on seeks to provide a good reason for banning gay marriage. 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"Pro likes to use the word invalid alot, never the less, Pro doesn't seem to dis agree here. CA = Counter ArgumentCA: ReligionPro says "Legal gay marriage will anger God if any of these religions is on the mark. Is it worth it? "Is it worth not being a muslim cause Islam might be on the mark ? Is it worth being a non catholic cause Catholicism might be on the mark ? Is it worth having wealth cause Jesus saying its easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needles than enter the kingdom of God isn't him just using hyperbole. ? Maybe God will see the banning of gay marriage as a self justifying, political wedge tactic. Is it really worth banning gay marriage if it might make God angry ? There was something called "The Enlightenment", you might want to look into that. Eugenics Pro makes the argument for Eugenics but the argument either is a non sequitur or back fires. Its a non sequitur because even if you accept government interference in who can have children this doesn't mean you have to ban gay marriage. It back fires cause Pros argument here is all about who can have children in order to improve the gene pool but this can also be used to justify gay marriage. You see gay marriage can't produce any children and thus are not a threat to Pros goal of eugenics. Its the breeders that you need to regulate in order to achieve the goals of eugenics not the non breeders. CA: The State and Gay marriagePro says. .. "No. It does not produce children, so society as a whole will gain nothing. "1) Why should marriage be restricted to those who can only have children ? Under this rule, an infertile couple can't get married or grandma.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.3) Even if something is not beneficial doesn't mean that state has the right to ban it, there are plenty of things that are not overall beneficial to society but are allowed like, over eating, smoking and allowing people like Pro on debate sites. Pro says. .. "It (the state) 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,"Marriage was never defined at the start by me as only between a man and a woman. Therefore the lack of authorizing gay marriage doesn't make gay marriage illegal anymore than a heterosexual marriage would be illegal because of lack of authorization. I would also add, that the law (at least in the western civilization) actually "authorize" freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, basically freedom to do what ever you want as long as their isn't a law against it. As such the law would "authorize" gay marriage until their is an explicit law banning gay marriage. Pros questionPro asks. .. "Which is more important: the freedom to have children or the right of children to be born free? "Maybe Pro has a point here, maybe Pro is right, but it doesn't matter because Pro has to prove that gay marriage should be illegal and until Pro can show that accepting eugenics means we must ban gay marriage then eugenics and pros question is not relevant. I would remind Pro that they have to prove that gay marriage should be illegal. I look forward to Pros response. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...