Gay Marriage should be Illegal (2)

Rebuttal"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."The argument was merely restated in the citation, with the added stipulation that JSM rejected his BoP, as has Con."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 ... 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."Con has misunderstood. To make a statement that essentially amounts to "freedom is intrinsic and inherent to humanity" gives Con BoP for that statement and quoting JSM trying to shift BoP does not change that. The statement is debate-worthy in itself. Mere practicality does not make freedom intrinsic. Con must provide evidence or argument that freedom is our default, rather than "it's easier" or "prove me wrong"."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."Con has misunderstood again, perhaps this time due to my lack of clarity, for which I apologise. If I make a good argument, this condition is fulfilled and thus bears no influence on the debate. I was already compelled to attempt to prove the resolution, so stating that I must prove it well, as a premise, is pointless as I will automatically fulfill it in the course of the debate by making a decent argument. I may as well have made my opening argument, "Con needs to make a good case for the legality of homosexual marriage". My point is that this is essentially included in the resolution and Con has made, for want of a better expression, a pointless point. This applies equally to Con's conclusion."Is it worth not being a muslim cause Islam might be on the mark ?"With regards to actually choosing a religion, this is, I agree an invalid principle. There is something to be noted here. All religions generally denounce hypocrisy, so it is not worth being a Muslim because Islam may be on the mark, etc. However, homosexual marriage could be illegal without any hypocrisy, so it makes sense. The safe bet of Pascal's Wager.Not only this, but Christianity and Islam are both, if one cares to read the scripture without cherry-picking to support one's own agenda/philosophy, virulently homophobic. It's an "abomination". The religious laws of about 4 billion people would be satisfied on this count if homosexual marriage was illegal."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 ?"This makes no sense. There is no reason to believe that God would interpret the following of his word as political point-scoring. However, I haven't actually proposed banning gay marriage, so this is something of a strawman."Pro makes the argument for Eugenics but the argument either is a non sequitur or back fires"I direct Con to the last two paragraphs of my point on eugenics, as he seems to have completely ignored them. I argued that the state should use marriage as a tool to regulate breeding. Compulsory sterilisation would be more efficient, and probably more practical (so I assume Con would, based on the reasoning of his first premise, advocate this instead) but adapting a social instituion like marriage allows for a "soft" eugenic policy. Gay marriage would not improve the gene pool at all. Explain this."You see gay marriage can't produce any children and thus are not a threat to Pros goal of eugenics."Con's argument misses the point entirely. If the state only endorses marriages it considers will produce desirable children, it cannot endorse the marriage of non-breeders. Otherwise, it is doing those not deemed suitable to reproduce an injustice, without good reason. "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."Yes, that's the point. Marriage should be used as a tool to encourage reproduction between desirable individuals and discourage reproduction between individuals that would not produce desirable, healthy children."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."This is insane. If gays cannot have non-promiscuous, committed, stable relationships without being married, I very much doubt that marriage would change that. If a straight couple repeatedly cheated on each other, broke up and got back together and otherwise did not have a stable relationship, would you recommend that they get married, Con?Why are stable homosexual relationships beneficial for society anyway? "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."If Con wishes to refute my argument on these grounds, he should refute my point "The Purpose of the State". As he has not done so, the point stands.In an ideal world, the state would ban over-eating, The state should ban smoking and I propose that the primary reason it doesn't is that it would lose so much money. A virtuous government would do so.Ouch. You could argue that that constitutes an ad hominem. May I remind Con that not only do such arguments represent poor conduct, but they also violate the DDO ToS? So, dear opponent, please explain and defend that statement."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..."This is completely irrelevant. If Con refers to his own definitions, provided pre-debate:"Illegal = Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited or not authorized by law"Thus, not authorising gay marriage makes it illegal by Con's definition. The point stands."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."Matters not covered by law are not tacitly authorised, they are unrecognised. This means they would not be given the rights given to state-endorsed marriages, the right to reproduce in this case, which is somewhat useless to them anyway. Gays would still be free to marry under any religion they please, exchange rings, live together, have sex, etc. The state would simply not recognise, or "authorise", such marriages. To make it absolutely clear, imagine I start my own religion. I marry myself. The (actual, not hypothetical) state will not recognise (authorise) this in any way. I will not be treated as married for any purpose. I will not, however, face punishment. It's unauthorised, and by Con's definition, illegal, as would gay marriage be. Please note, this is purely hypothetical and not an actual application of my argument."Maybe Pro has a point here, maybe Pro is right, but it doesn't matter because Pro has to prove ... accepting eugenics means we must ban gay marriage then eugenics and pros question is not relevant."Marriage is an accepted social institution. Adapting it to eugenic policy is more practical and less controversial than programmes compulsory sterilisation etc., and this is what I have argued. Through using marriage as a tool to encourage and authorise reproduction between desirable individuals, the eugenic policy is implemented in the most practical way.