Gay Marriage/Same Sex Marriage should be Illegal (3)

All good things must come to an end............last round. This isn't a farm, so why so many strawmen ? Pro repeatably makes the claim that I deliberately try to mis characterise their argument, this is not the case. Any mis characterisation is from ignorance not intent. (Okey except for the dark ages snipe). But in my defense I think Pro could make their argument alot easier to understand for example Pro says..."Meanwhile same-sex couples are not normative in essence, thus same-sex couples oughtn't to be granted a marriage license." Normative = "In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong." [1] Essence = "In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an object or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity" [2] Don't you think this is an unnecessary difficult way of saying homosexuality is immoral therefore we should ban gay marriage, oh and gays can't have penis/vagina sex, and if you can't have penis/vagina sex you can't have a marriage ? Defending you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argument Premise 1) Freedom is our default Pro says..."Con seems to be implying that I am suggesting freedom, underlying my principal objection focusing on same-sex marriage, is not my default position." Nope, my argument was just showing the problem of rejecting my premise and accepting its logical negation that freedom is NOT our default, it seemed to me you agreed with this premise or at least didn't argue against it. Pro says... "For example, we would not be justified in restricting immoral behaviour, such as, infanticide, murder, and pedophilia, until inferentially proven otherwise." & "I have maintained the position, with respect to this debate, that we ought to restrict particular freedoms when justified."" Yes Pro, freedom is our default, it has been shown that we have good reason to ban rape and thus we ban rape and continue to ban rape. This doesn't refute the first premise. Again if you provide a good reason to restrict freedom this doesn't refute the premise that freedom is our default. Of course whether you have provided a good reason to restrict a freedom is the question. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegal Pro seems to agree that we need a good reason to make something illegal, and seeks to provide a good reason to ban gay marriage. C) 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 The Procreation argument & creative type acts If the couple doesn't have the parts of one penis plus one vagina your not allowed to get married, are we clear here ? Homosexuality and morality Pro merely dismisses my argument here as irrelevant. Well sorry I think it is relevant and I would advise readers not to dismiss what was said as irrelevant just because Pro says so. remember Pro is the one making the big song and dance about how homosexuality is immoral, Pro is the one who argues that their concept of marriage can't tolerate gays getting married. Pro does agree that their concept of marriage doesn't disqualify a couple from marrying on "immoral" grounds as shown in my previous examples. Apparently this ideal of marriage can tolerate the marriage of the abusive couple that is abusive to their kids, it can tolerate the rapist and murder getting married, but as soon as two men or two women want to marry each other, that's when this marriage ethic says no, that's when this normative of marriage says God forbid, that's when this ethical construct says no way, this is the one thing we can't tolerate, this is the one thing which is truly so despicable, so immoral that we can't possible allow it. You must, I repeat you MUST have one person with a penis and one person with a vagina, that's the deal breaker. I don't buy it, and in my submission I don't think you the reader should either. Pros premise ""P1) If the state affirms that same-sex unions are equivalent to marriage, then the state denies the unique nature of the multileveled union between a man and a woman that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children, and denies the intrinsic capacity of sexual acts to embody that multi-leveled union (insofar as it implies that sexual acts have only instrumental value)."" Nothing about heterosexuality changes one bit if you allow gay marriage (that includes its "intrinsic" value), Pro acknowledges this. We are going to make something illegal just because Pro asserts a "value" is going to end up denied. Funny most things that are made illegal include some sort of harm or potential harm to people you know like rape, driving on the foot path, putting arsenic in some one food, detonating a nuclear weapon in a city, you know that kind of stuff. Pro has not shown a harm of this sort. I don't think we should accept this whole denial of a value argument, take for instance our often mentioned infertile couple. Now Pro is big on the baby making from partly which hetrosexual acts get their "value" from, but of course Pro doesn't think allowing an infertile couple to get married some how denies the value of hetrosexual acts. Never the less Pro would still have people believe that allowing gay marriage who can't justify their marriage in the possibility of producing babies just like the infertile married couple will result in the denial of hetrosexual value. If Pro merely asserts that some value is denied as a result of allowing gay marriage, then I can merely assert that no value is denied if you allow gay marriage. The argument for Gay Marriage Pro pointed out that gay marriage is already assumed in the argument allow me to change premise 1 & premise 3 to take away this assumption. 1) If gay marriage is allowed, a gay marriage can't produce children 2) Marriage is good in its self even if its unable to produce children (Pros argument) 3) Therefore if a gay marriage is allowed it can be good 4) Therefore we should not make gay marriage illegal Premise 1 no longer assumes gay marriage as an already given, and we know that Pro likes to remind us that gay marriage can't produce children. Marriage is good in its self even it its unable to produce children is the very reason given to us by Pro in order to justify the infertile couple getting married, so Pro grants premise 2). Does premise 3) or the argument as a whole require that homosexual coupling be MORALLY equivalent to hetrosexual coupling ? Not at all, I could grant that heterosexuality coupling is the greatest moral coupling and that homosexuality isn't quite as morally good and Premise 3) and the argument would still stand. If Pro objects that homosexuality is immoral and thus can't be good thus refuting premise 3) then Pro would have to show that. Also you can't reject the argument on the basis that marriage should only be between a man and a woman until it has been proven that marriage should only be between a man and woman as this would be question begging Pros position. Yes I realize Pro would retort they have already done that, what can I say, other than I disagree. Even if this argument breaks down, I am not too concerned as you still need a good reason to make something illegal, so a refutation of this argument doesn't automatically mean that gay marriage should be illegal. Closing Remarks Well Pro did express there disappointment at the debate already in the comments section, but as a consolation prize I think I have a better handle on this type of argument against gay marriage, so its not a complete loss now is it ? You need a good reason to make something illegal, and I submit that Pro didn't give us a good reason. Vote Con I thank Pro for providing a thought provoking debate.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...