Gay Marriage should be Illegal (2)

My Feathers Are UnruffledI was simply highlighting Con's poor conduct and form. No personal offence taken, my good man. Please note that not all arguments made necessarily represent my own views. I'm an atheist. [1]Con's Constant Attacks on a Strawman of his Own CreationI have at no point argued that gay marriage should be banned. I have only argued that the state should not recognise gay marriages, and thus that they will be illegal by Con's own definition. Con should read my arguments and answer them, instead of attacking a position I do not represent, a strawman [2]. I have explicitly stated;"Gays would still be free to marry under any religion they please, exchange rings, live together, have sex, etc."Con has insisted on repeatedly attacking a ban on gay marriages. I am not arguing for a ban. Rebuttal"Pro has not provided any reason why the negation of my premise is more plausible."Practicality =/= plausibility. This is incredibly fallacious. If one must insist on metaphysical truths, surely it is not wise to insist that those that best suit one's needs are the most plausible? If Pro insists, I would propose that the most plausible explanation is that freedom is a societal construct and thus that it bears no especial significance or validity, other than that which we assign it, akin to morality and the like, and should thus be compromised when convenient or in the service of some greater goal. To refute this, Con must accept the burden of proof that I argue has been his from the start, due to the assertion being his, without any defence other than its perceived practicality. Note that I am not arguing for the negation of his premise, merely that it stands on the grounds of a false belief. "Freedom" merely describes a state of being. Con's use of freedom assumes that freedom represents some moral right. I argue that moral rights do not exist, as there is no basis for such a belief other than assumptions. A default state of being holds no significance. The default state of a piece of land is undeveloped and wild. We should not maintain this simply because it is the default. If freedom is merely a description of a state of being, there is no reason that it should be maintained in the face of any argument of any substance. Eugenics represents this argument of substance and thus justifies freedom's compromise."Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPro seems to agree.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 seems to agree."Although I do not necessarily agree, I have put forward a "good reason" for the illegality of gay marriage."Pro tries to use a pascals wager on gay marriage, after all maybe God won't approve of Gay marriage. But Pro would reject such reasoning from a muslim/Jew/Pastafarian that says you had better do XYZ cause God might not approve of it. Like wise Pro's reasoning here that gay marriage should be banned cause God might not like it should also be rejected."Not so. I have never argued that gay marriage should be banned. Strawman. I have simply added, as a supporting argument, that it would be a wise wager on the part of any government."..."In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so." [2]"I ask my opponent if he would be willing to denounce democracy, often considered to be strongly linked with freedom. If not, this point stands. In fact, it stands regardless as it is not an argumentum ad populum. I did not state that these people are right. I merely asserted that if the majority of the human race (>4 billion / 7 billion [3]) believe it so, I would consider that "a good reason" under Con's original premises. "1) Freedom is our default (already dealt with)2) You need a good reason to ban something (Pro agree's with this)3) The harm principle"The harm principle is essentially another articulation of the first two premises. Con does not seem to understand that citations do not strengthen an argument if they add nothing, nor is this their purpose, as he should know from his own source [4]. This adds very little, and thus does not strengthen the argument to any great degree."Under Pros argument even if something is not hurting anybody or anything the state should seek to prevent minimize it if its not deemed "beneficial". This is a waste and mis use of state power and we have no reason to accept this."Hardly. It is a waste of man hours to engage in activities that hold no benefit for humanity or society. "Once again under Pros purpose of state argument if the state deemed that it is not beneficial for Pro to come and debate then the state should seek to prevent/minimize Pro from doing so........God forbid !!!"It is exceptionally unlikely that the state would not consider it beneficial that its citizens have time to engage in recreational and intellectually stimulating activities. . Excessive punctuation will not strengthen Con's argument."Banning something just because its not "beneficial" is not a good reason to ban something."Time is perhaps our most valuable commodity."Pro tries to link eugenics with banning gay marriage but its a non sequitur. With the government not justified in banning something just because its not beneficial, even if you accept the goal of eugenics it doesn't necessarily follow that you have to ban gay marriage."This is not only a strawman, but a simple repetition of Con's earlier argument. I have not argued that gay marriage should be banned. I have only argued that it should not be endorsed by the state. I have argued that marriage should be used by the state as a tool to encourage reproduction between desirable individuals. I've also only argued that gay marriages are not beneficial to society so the state should not seek to encourage them, and it should not endorse/authorise them."Pro makes the point about "authorization". This was an oversight on my part, but if this is the best Pro has for banning gay marriage an oversight on a definition, is this really a "good" reason to ban marriage ?In any case if Pro wants to adhere to their interpretation of illegal means lack of authorization, then Pro would still have to prove the that gay marriage should not be authorized."Whether or not it was an oversight is absolutely irrelevant. Con must argue within the definitions he set out for the debate. Con is now attempting to argue that I should argue using a different definition of illegal from the one he specified, pre-debate. Again, I have not argued that gay marriage should be banned.I have proven that gay marriage should not be authorised. Con has yet to properly answer the argument.Arguments dropped by Con1. Why are stable homosexual relationships beneficial to society?2. Why does Con suppose that marriage will reduce promiscuity and instability in gay relationships, and would he suggest marriage as the solution to the relationship problems of straight couples?3. The difference between not endorsing gay marriages and banning them.4. Why Con believes that gay marriage would improve the gene pool.5. Why not endorsing gay marriages may anger (the Abrahamic) God.6. Why careful state endorsement of only beneficial marriages is not a good way to implement a eugenic policy.[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...