Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope

First, you claimed my whole argument was based off logical fallacies. The "slippery slope" argument is considered a logical fallacy. HOWEVER, I am trying to prove the exact opposite. I am trying to prove that in this usage it is not, in fact, a logical fallacy. If I ignored your arguments I did not mean to do so. By defining the objective of this debate I was not trying to discredit any of your arguments. I was saying that my supposed logical fallacies are legitimate arguments. 1. You pretty much said I cannot prove that homosexuality leads to Incest. Think about that. I spent the last few rounds posting arguments similar to those used to justify homosexuality. As you have stated, there would be many such arguments. However, I am sure many of these other arguments would also apply to Incest, or perhaps bestiality and pedophilia. If you can argue for homosexuality through Argument X, then if somebody argues for incest using Argument X, effectively the two should be treated the same. Where do you think the pro-incest people would be getting Argument X? Who do you think inspired them to rally for their "rights?" I'm telling you...that's not as much of a straw argument as you think it is. And the two of them do love each other. If you dismiss this argument, you also dismiss this argument for pro-gay usage. 2. As I've stated on the comments arguing with Shootzilla, if somebody touches a sexually mature animal's parts, it should be able to know exactly what's going on. If it's not being forced there against its will yet it doesn't run or resist, that IS effectively, the same thing as consent. So, in this hypothetical scenario, the man/woman loves the animal and the animal effectively gives something that is close enough to consent, since it knows what's going on yet it doesn't resist or run. Therefore, this is NOT rape. In this scenario, it literally hurts no one (except maybe through the contraction of an STD). This is one of the arguments used for homosexuality. If you dismiss this argument, you also dismiss this argument from pro-gay usage. 3. The teen and the adult love each other. It hurts no one else. And actually, unlike the other two, it quite literally is natural. In this way it is like homosexuality (except gayness isn't actually natural in humans). If you dismiss all these arguments, you dismiss them for pro-gay usage. Therefore you don't have very much left to support homosexuality with, unless you accept these arguments for pro-pedophile usage. Was that elaborated enough for you? You keep saying that you could argue heterosexual relationships could lead to this. Not with monogamous heterosexual relationships. You see, this all leads back to my main point. When you get to bestiality, you can't skip homosexuality. Since I initiated this debate, I have the burden of proof. However, do you not also have a responsibility to prove me wrong? Pretty much all you've done is say I have no proof. But I do, because the animal smoochers and the sister smoochers and the 40 year olds with the 15 year old girlfriends are inspired to fight for their "rights" by the homosexuals. If the homosexuals never won, these other movements (which I do admit have not emerged yet) would not have emerged. You have never given I response to my argument about the line, the line that must not be crossed otherwise the depravity will get worse and worse. Post Scriptum: If my arguments are not sufficient, if I haven't answered something that you want me to answer, if I haven't proven something, please specify. Tell me exactly what questions, what challenges you raised, that I haven't answered. Tell me plainly so I can give you an answer. I guarantee that I can give you some kind of response, hopefully a decent one, if I know what it is you're looking for. Post Post Scriptum: Yeah, I said I'd cover AIDS on this round. My point about AIDS is that it costs society money to treat AIDS. That was my point there.