gay marriage does not lead to bestiality or pedophilia marriages

My opponent made the following rebuttals: 1) "Anyone of any age of any gender of any sexual preference can be sexually abused or raped, and regardless of the circumstances, rape if often traumatizing. You said that homosexuals were looked down upon because people thought they were gross and unaccepted by the peoples' religions. Pedophiles and bestials(?) are also looked down upon because they're gross in most eyes. Going back, interracial couples were gross in some eyes, but it all changed." I agree with my opponent that homosexuals, pedophiles, and bestiality cause society to be grossed out and it is unaccepted for religious purposes,(probably on equal levels), but one thing they do not have in common is the fact that children and animals are being HARMED. Two consenting adults of the same sex HARM NO ONE. This point cannot be overstated. We should not ban something just because someone is grossed out by it; that would be unconstitutional. That is probably the main reason gay marriage is prevailing now. There is no argument to the harm that it would cause to society. MANY arguments can be made about the harm that would come to children and animals, as I have previously stated. There is no other comparison to homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia except for people being repulsed and the religious nature. I challenge my opponent to show any more. Regardless of any of this, it is not evidence that pedophilia and bestiality will lead to gay marriage anymore than interracial or heterosexual marriage will. My opponent answered my question about whether or not we should ban interracial marriages since it was once argued that they led to gay marriage. My opponent answered the following way, "No, they are already legal. The point was that times change and if people recognize minorities gaining equality, they will be more prone to fight for their equality." I will rephrase the question; should we have banned (past tense) interracial marriages because some argued that they led to gay marriage? If your argument is correct, it too led to gay marriage. I would like to point out that there is no evidence that interracial marriages led to gay marriage. I have never head a gay person say that they want to get married because an interracial couple did. Most say that they want to get married because they are Americans and pay taxes like every race and orientation. In fact, if any thing was to blame, it would be the heterosexual marriages. Blacks wanted it and THEN gays wanted it. 2) "Heterosexual marriages were once seen as the only acceptable marriage, it is the rudimentary marriage and is a binding under God's eyes if religious. There would be no reason to ban any type of marriage because they open up others' eyes for equality. To say we should ban this is to say we should ban the abacus because it opened the eyes of others for innovation for the modern-day calculator. " I don't see the correlation between the abacus and a modern-day calculator and the topic we are discussing. So far, I have not seen anyone make any "moral claims" about math. Furthermore, I believe my opponent actually proved my point and contradicted himself. I would also suggest that heterosexual marriage still "opened the eyes" for people that were interracial to question their own equality. 3) "Like I showed earlier in my link, majority of states require parental consent as well as the minor's (in this case "child's"). This being said, there would be no legal way that a 5-year-old child would ever be able to marry an adult without parental consent (which I highly doubt they will get). Age of consent is defined as the age at which a person's, typically a girl's, consent to sexual intercourse is valid in law." Many things trouble me about that statement. As I have already shown, the Federal age of consent is 18. Having said that, it differs in each state. According to the "Statutory Rape: A Guide to State Laws and Reporting Requirements," is says that the lowest age for consent in ANY state is 16 (pe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/sr/statelaws/summary.shtml) What troubles me about my opponents statement the most is that he said, "there would be no legal way that a 5-year-old child would ever be able to marry an adult without parental consent (which I highly doubt they will get)" The word "marriage" implies "a sexual relationship". Even with parental consent, it would be considered "molestation" or "child rape". Most states have more extreme penalties and laws against rape or molestation of a child under 13. My opponent made the disturbing argument that children can make their own decisions about toys, what they want, what they want for lunch, and therefore, implied they could make a decision about sex. Children do not possess the knowledge or maturity to make SMART or SAFE decisions for their lives! That is one of the things that makes them different from adults. That is exactly why they need guardians; they cannot take care of themselves. A child can choose and make the decision to take drugs, drink, play with a gun, kill themselves, drive a car, but it does not mean they should. There is overwhelming evidence to show why they should not. My opponent said that the child would probably deny the invitation for sex. And if they didn't, then what? Would it be the child's fault for not saying, "NO."? Even if the child initiates it, it would still be the adult's fault because the adult should have known better. 4) "When it comes to having custody over a child of their spouse, because the child is not their own, I do not believe they have the right to fight for custody. Custody is a matter of the parents of the child, in most cases" I will complicate it even further; if the pedophile and the child adopted a 16-year-old, would the 5-year-old get custody of the 16-year-old if the judge ruled in the 5-year-old's favor? What I find fascinating about this discussion is that I almost forgot what the topic of this debate was! None of this proves that gay marriage will lead to this nonsense. Two adults, that just happen to be the same gender and want to marry, do not give pedophiles the right to molest children or people the right to rape animals. 5) "To defend it as best I can, people are marrying inanimate objects (http://www.ranker.com......). Obviously inanimate objects have no ability to consent to anything at all, but the marriages are still identified in their state. With this and gay marriage being legal, it could encourage people/animal marriages. It's better to marry something conscious than something inanimate, no?" The "source" my opponent quoted is not a reputable source. "Ranker" is simply a website created for voting on certain things, for example, soda brands, fast food places, ect.. There is not a single state that allows one to marry an inanimate object. My opponents argument that "it's better to marry something conscious than something inanimate", does not show evidence that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia or bestiality. I will now deal with my opponents questions: 1) "Looking throughout history, how one thing has led to a similar thing, how can we ignore that one type of marriage will lead to another?" In epidemiology, correlation does not prove causation (http://stats.org...) You cannot prove with epidemiology what causes something ,but you can prove what DOESN'T cause something. For example, if a high crime area has a lot of calls to the police, we cannot conclude that calling the police leads to high crime. Furthermore, we cannot conclude that the answer is to stop calling the police! There is no logical way to defend the molestation of children or rape of animals. Both cause harm to the species. 2) "Does the disgust of the majority justify the prohibition of marriages between loving partners regardless of age, gender, or in this case specie? " "Disgust" is not the issue here. It is the ability of the person or specie to consent and whether or not it harms the person or specie. 3) "Why did you suggest that rape and sexual abuse only harm children but not those who are adults, sometimes adults who have consented their marriage? Is the rape and sexual abuse more acceptable than the rape and sexual abuse of a child? If no, why ignore this? If yes, how?" I believe my opponent simply misunderstood me. Obviously rape causes harm to adults in consented relationships. I never meant to imply they did not. I believe ALL rape and sexual abuse is evil. Back to the subject, I still see no evidence that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia and bestiality. 4) "Going back to my rebuttal, should we ban the origin of all things innovated once not accepted by society? (By this, I mean: Some people don't like clowns (sorry for the bad example). Does this mean that we should ban clowns or should have banned the original clowns because people would grow to fear/hate them?)" I must admit, I believe this actually makes MY point; not my opponents. In conclusion, my opponent has offered absolutely no evidence to support the theory that gay marriage will lead to pedophilia and bestiality. He said that "cause/ effect through history" is proof. If that is they case, then cause/effect in history has only proven that interracial marriage has led to gay marriage, but heterosexual marriage has led to interracial marriage. Should we have banned hetero and interracial marriages? Just because someone wants to make something legal that does not harm anyone, does not mean that we should make things legal that DO harm other humans and other species because their "eyes were opened". One is not harmful; the other 2 are. I yield to my opponent.