Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope

Resolved: Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery SlopeTo start this debate off I think we should clearly establish the correct meaning or interpretation of this resolution. Slippery slope means two different things. It could refer to 1. The logical fallacy of a slippery slope, or 2. The noun.I think based on the context of round 1, we can safely assume that the logical fallacy wasn’t meant here, as it doesn’t make sense. I am going to assume he is referring to the dictionary definition which is properly defined in the Encarta Dictionary as: “A dangerous situation that can lead to ultimate downfall.” (1)So in this debate, my primary goal will be to defend that the acceptance of Homosexuality is not a downfall. The resolution doesn’t specify in context the area, but I am going to safely assume this is for the United States, again based on the context used in Round 1. The statement of the resolution would under normal circumstances place the Burden Of Proof in the hands of the pro. However he has turned this debate over to me to “start”. Since he is instigating the claim however, I am forced to go off of the “arguments” laid out in his opening round. Though I will provide my own arguments at any rate, because that is how I roll…Rebuttal 1: Loving VS VirginiaThe main “argument” here seems to that the interracial marriage trial between Loving and the State of Virginia, ultimately led to gay marriage, and this was classified by my opponent as damage. What is slightly humorous is that this argument successfully leads this debate into a play on words, as this argument would fall into the category of a slippery slope argument. We haven’t concluded or been shown in evidence that homosexuality is damaging or harmful in any way, nor has an argument for this assessment been given yet. Thus this fully qualifies as a slippery slope fallacy which is defined as: “Slippery Slope can be described as an analogy to take the argument in one direction with a series of steps leading to a much more extreme outcome.”(2)To sum it up, my opponent my opponent has already concluded D, before establishing A-C, and presented as fact. This presumption should thus be dis-regarded. My opponent cites that the Loving Vs Virginia cased might have played a role in the legalization of gay marriage in certain areas. I don’t know how much substance this assertion has, as the trial was only cited according to Cornell Law (3). In fact it was rejected in one case as a proper citation In Hernandez v. Robles (2006), the majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals, that state's highest court, declined to rely on the Loving case when deciding whether a right to same-sex marriage existed, holding that "the historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case”(3)In fact it did uphold in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case of 2010, but was used as citation for conclusion only, in which it’s real effect was limited. (4)According to Cornell Law, the only real link between this case and homosexuality was the statement from Mildred Loving “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry... I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.” (5)This statement was more broad then anything, and wasn’t supposed to be a push for homosexuality.So while I shouldn’t have the BOP here, I will go ahead and create a case anyways.Contention 1: No physical Harm to a societyHomosexuality can bear no physical harm to a society. Outside of merely disgusting an individual who chooses not to be open to certain things, homosexuality does zero harm to anyone. It cannot be argued that homosexuality in and of itself is a physical detriment to any individual who doesn’t so choose to be affected by it. Society cannot therefor be affected in the manner of a slippery slope. Physical harm is defined by Webster’s dictionary as: “Physical or psychological injury or damage.”(6) Psychological damage in this case is definitely a non-issue, as being affected by the thought can happen regardless of legality, and can even happen with-in heterosexual relationships. Thus meaning that the legalization itself, does no damage outside of a personal choice. This is a compelling argument in negation of the resolution, because it holds a proof value that must be detained by the pro in order to successfully continue argumentation in this area, and on the topic in entirety.Contention 2: Societies AcceptanceBecause the United States Government and most United States societies already largely accept homosexuality, my opponent must prove how society already meets the definition provided above of a slippery slope. In what way is the anti-homosexuality community being more negatively affected, than the homosexual community who has faced hundreds of years of discrimination before finally being granted their societal acceptance? Following this answer, pro should also effectively answer how this supporting the anti-homosexual community is better for society, than rejecting the homosexual community in and of itself. The answers to these questions are essential before moving on with the debate, and until they are answered I happily await my opponents response. 1. Encarta Dictionary2. www.fallaciesfiles.weebly.com/slippery-slope.html3. Hernandez VS Robles (2006)4. Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010)5. www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/16. www.thefreedictionary.com/harm