Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope

Thanks for the response, I will cover your arguments right away.Rebuttals1. Adult IncestMy opponent makes an anology comparing arguments against Incest to arguments against homosexuality as well. However I think it is important to note that I at this point, have not argued (nor will I), against incest itself. Let's define incest. 1. Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom. 2. The statutory crime of sexual relations with such a near relative. (1) The purpose of defining this is to show the important part of the definitions, which are "illegal, forbidden by custom, crime". The ideaslism against Incest, is the same as it is based on the original similar perceptions that have caused such a stir with homosexuality and marriage. Perceptions based on what is already illegal and percieved as wrong, influencing bias towards a totally different subject. At any rate, is this "argument" really applicable? Let me explain. categorically, it can be argued that there is a difference. Heterosexual relationships include one man, one woman. Homosexual relationships include two men, or two women. Incest can encompass either of the two, but is strictly defined by the relationship tied by close family. There is really two ways I can look at it. The first being that each category is entirely different subjects, and should be analyzed seperately. If this outlook is the outlook used, than my opponents argument is completely irrelevant as it proves this has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. The second way I look at it, is that marriage is between individuals of consent who love each other, in which every category is the exact same. In this case, the Pro should have no arguments against homosexuality. Point is, this is not an argument against homosexuality, it is an argument attempting to compare either two different things, or three similar things. I am left asking: What was the point of this argument?2. Bestiality/ZoophiliaTo start addressing this argument, let me explain what my opponent has done here. My opponent has used informal un-affirmed logic, through the use of a prepositional fallacy. The fallacy used is called "affirming a disjunct" (8). Specifically, affirming a disjunt means to assume that because the answer isn't "A", then the answer is automatically "B". By saying "the animal does not refuse to consent" and assuming the animal has given consent. To debunk that anyway, let's define consent.1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree.(9)Because an animal cannot knowingly consent on the same mental plane that humans can inter-connect with each other and communicate. The argument is thus irrelevante at this point. But let's go even further and adress my opponents statement of "the animal feels affection for its owner/partner". How exactly do you know what those feelings are and what they entail? Are you suggesting an animal is capable of loving a human on the same level as two humans can love each other? And believe me, I am not saying they cannot, but I am just curious as to how you know that, and what the difference between an animal feeling "love" as between two human partners, and an affection based on being cared for. Is it instinctual, and what does it entail? Again the topics are entirely different, and but your argument assumes a lot of unknown factors. The main point I am getting accross here is that in homosexuality there is consent from a knowing, mature, adult presence. Such physically cannot be the case with animals.3. Sexual Relationships Between Minors and Adults (consenting) I think I may be mis-understanding exactly what the Con's point here is specifically against Gay Marriage. Do you realize you are not expliciting a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality? Consent or not, the same situations are frowned on in heterosexuality, but homosexuality doesn't automatically entail sexual relationships between minors and adults. Anyways, I think the biggest problem in this debate, is that you are arguing other people's weaker arguments, while ignoring my own (which might have been avoided upon reading my earlier contentions. In that I didn't make the statement that teenagers and adults should be together simply because they love each other, nor did I make that argument itself at all. The resolution is specifically referring to Homosexuality, thus I need to hear some actual arguments pointing out why homosexuality is so much worse than heterosexuality, such that it will result in a "slippery slope" or downfall of society. 4. STD's"Actually, homosexual people do get AIDS more than straight people. A group that makes up 2% or so of the US population make up about 60% of AIDS victims. My source for this claim was an article from the AFA Magazine."How do individuals STD's effect straight couples? Do all straight couple's with STD's equally effect homosexuals? Why is this point even pertinent, if it only effects the parties involved? Also doesn't this "point" just automatically assume every homosexual couple will be engaging in sexual activity? Kind of unfair to those who don't isn't it? And finally this point completely centers around part of the gay population, and completely dis-regards gender orientation between two females. In fact, straight woman who perform anal sex have more of a chance of getting STD's than a lesbian couple have the oppertunity to. If you could please adress my first two contentions in the next round, that would be great. Thanks, and good luck. Sources:7. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...8. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...9. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...