Gay Marriage should be Illegal (4)

ResolutionGay Marriage should be IllegalBurden of ProofPro will affirm the resolutionCon will oppose the resolutionDebate details4 Rounds8,000 Character limit72 Hours to respond1 Month voting periodNO VIDEO LINKS !!!PROBLEMS ?If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.Round 4Round 4 is the last round, no new material or arguments are to be presented in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.Definitions:Gay = "Gay is a word that commonly refers to a male or female whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex."Marriage = Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.Gay Marriage =(Obviously we are talking about people of the same sex who want to marry each other hence the term "Gay Marriage", also known as Same Sex Marriage.Illegal = Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited by law.Opening ArgumentHere is my first argument, lets call it the you need a good reason to make and keep something illegal argument.P1) Freedom is our defaultP2) You need a good reason to make something IllegalC) 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 illegalPremise 1) Freedom is our defaultWhat I mean by saying that freedom is our default is that there is and should be a presumption in favour of liberty when considering what should and should not be illegal. The presumption in favour of liberty is the cornerstone of Western societies."This might be called the Fundamental Liberal Principle(Gaus, 1996: 162-166): freedom is normatively basic, and so the onus of justification is on those who would limit freedom, especially through coercive means. It follows from this that political authority and law must be justified, as they limit the liberty of citizens. " [1]The alternative would be that freedom is NOT our default.Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalI suppose we could just have rules based on the whims of a king or tyrant, but I doubt Pro will argue against this premise. Mill too argued that ‘the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition" [1]The alternative would be that you DON'T need a good reason to make something illegal.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 illegalCommon Arguments used to justify the banning of gay marriageAt this point I would like to go over some common arguments that are used to support the banning of gay marriage......."Gays can't have children"The person who advocates this view probably doesn't claim that an infertile hetrosexual couple should be banned from being able to marry, thus showing that being able to have children is NOT a necessary criteria for allowing people to marry."Allowing gays to marry is giving special rights to gay"A common argument used to support this special rights claim is that only gays want to marry gays thus its only benefits them. But under this kind of reasoning no person or group that is denied something can ever seek to get rid of this denial, lest they be accused of seeking special rights. Perhaps it was wrong to allow women to vote, after all, allowing women to vote only benefited women thus women were seeking "special rights""Marriage should only be between a man and a woman"This definition/concept of marriage excludes gay marriage by definition. A racist could define marriage as only between a man and a woman of the same race and thus exclude interacial marriage by definition.Your going to need more than just a definition of marriage in order to justify the denial of marriage between people, whether that be between a gay couple or interacial couple."Hextrosexual marriage is some how necessary or good for the production of future citizens"Allowing gay marriage doesn't stop hextrosexual marriage, nor does it in anyway stop or interfere with children being produced in a hetrosexual marriage."If we allow gays to marry it will result in pedophilia & bestiality"Allowing consenting hetrosexual adults to marry doesn't result in these things, so why would allowing gay consenting adults to to marry result in these things ? Without sufficient warrant, its just a slippery slope argument and thus fallacious."Gays or homosexuality is disgusting"So is two hetrosexual fatties having sexual intercourse, but we don't ban marriage to them based on our personal disgust. If we are going to deny marriage to people on the basis of what disgusts us, then hardly anyone will be able to get married, whether homosexual or hetrosexual."I don't like gays"Then don't marry a gay person. Gay marriage doesn't force you into a gay marriage, nor does it require you to like gays or like homosexuality. It just gives gays an option to marry other gays.If Pro does agree you need a good reason to make something illegal and/or keep it illegal, then Pro will have to provide a good reason in order to justify gay marriage being banned. Until then the resolution is not affirmed.I look forward to Pros opening argument.Sources[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...