Society's Acceptance of Homosexuality is a Slippery Slope

To start off, I'll briefly address this comment by my opponent that had me slightly confused."First, this is not a debate on homosexuality all by itself. It is a debate on society's acceptance of homosexuality being a slippery slope. Therefore my points are not "irrelevant." "In what way does the resolution change my arguments? In fact all of my arguments were centered around how societies acceptance of homosexuality meet the definition you provided of a slippery slope, or a "down fall" to society. 1. Adult Incest It is hard to argue a lot of the points, because they are mostly made up logical fallacies, as I pointed out in the last round. Let me point out the ones in this point. The first fallacy here is the "correlation proves causation" fallacy. (10)"correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hocrequires that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a type ofcum hoc fallacy."So this leaves me wondering by how my opponent is linking societies acceptance homosexuality to societies acceptance to incest? This is why I expressed dis-belief in my opponents correlation, because they are not the same. I could argue the same way and say that heterosexuality leads to acceptance of incestual relationships as well. The point is, my opponent has not given any examples to prove that the two have ant correlation, thus the argument is completely empty and bewildering. This is something I see in many anti-homosexual arguments, and is something that makes debate very irritating and impossible. I am essentially arguing assertions, not actual arguments with evidence and impact. This point actually has multiple logical fallacies that are used within the other points as well, in which case later I will just point to each link subsequently.The next logical fallacy here, is assuming the incest is a problem. Based on the words of my opponent, it seems he is using an argument from nature (further exemplified in the comment section in this debate), which is effectively a "naturalistic fallacy". (11) "Arthur N. Prior defined it as …the assumption that because some quality or combination of qualities invariably and necessarily accompanies the quality of goodness, or is invariably and necessarily accompanied by it, or both, this quality or combination of qualities is identical with goodness. If, for example, it is believed that whatever is pleasant is and must be good, or that whatever is good is and must be pleasant, or both, it is committing the naturalistic fallacy to infer from this that goodness and pleasantness are one and the same quality. The naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that because the words 'good' and, say, 'pleasant' necessarily describe the same objects, they must attribute the same quality to them."Even without the comments section to further proof of fallacy here, my opponent has yet to prove how incest is a problem, and without arguing unatturality, I have yet to see how this is at all applicable. I refuse to argue a logical fallacy however, and wish to argue a good solid point about how homosexuality itself is a downfall to society. I have yet to see one argument made relative to the topic.The final fallacy used is not in the argument, but in the way it was argued. My opponent has been straw manning me throughout this entire debate by saying "I used pro-gay arguments to make a pro-Incest argument."Not only are you assuming that all "pro-gay" arguments are exactly the same, but you aren't referring to MY arguments. You are using some made up arguments I haven't even seen or used in this debate and arguing against them. In which case I ask you, what is the point of wanting to debate me? You are not debating me, you are debating someone else entirely. I have stated my own case in Round 1, as well as addressed your points. I asked you again to refute my case in Round 2, yet you have still been arguing other people's points rather than my own in this debate."The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." (12) This is very annoying, because this isn't even a debate, since all my opponent has managed to do is completely just repeat the same things over and over again, refusing to acknowledge any of my actual arguments.2. Bestiality/Zoophilia"You define consent as agreeing to the act. But if you don't object to it, wouldn't that also be consenting?"Absolutely not! Listen to this argument. Think about it. If a mute girl is raped by a man, is it consent because she does not have the physical ability to express verbal rejection? Same with animals. They don't have the physical or mental ability to understand consent on the same level a human does, and they operate completely off of animal instinct. They cannot tell you they consent. But we shouldn't even be talking about this in the first place, because as pointed out in the first round, it is completely irrelevant. Homosexuality isn't purely sexual, niether is all heterosexuality. The love and affection you talked about in Round 2 is completely different from the romantic connection that homosexuality is about. You have the BOP here, and consistently refuse to defend it. Again, I refer you to source number 8, about affirming a disjunct fallacy. Not giving consent, does not mean you automatically give consent. 3. PedophiliaAs the debate goes on, my opponent continues to grow farther and farther away from the actual topic. If what you say is true, and you don't think they are not the same, or anything close to being the same, then what is the point of this argument? Again, I can easily say that acceptance of heterosexuality leads to pedophilia, and just like you I would have no evidence or impact to support this point. You said the "logic can be justified to explain both". Please elaborate on this. You keep making an assertion, but not providing an actual argument to back this up. If you agree that they are completely two different things, why do you continue to use the the correlation does not imply causation argument? I absolutely cannot debate you period until you give me your impacts, and evidence to prove that there is any link. ConclusionBased on the arguments from my opponent in this debate, and furthered in the comment section, I think it's safe to assume that there probably will not be any further justification for his case, effectively making this debate pointless. Every single argument my opponent has made is based off of logical fallacies, which I refuse to debate. Lack of evidence is completely ridden in my opponents points, which also makes this widely redudant.That, and my opponent continues to argue someone else's points entirely, while completely ignoring both of the contentions I outlined in Round 1. He doesn't want to debate me, he wants to stubbornly hold the same opinion he already holds, without actually having to look at the value and merit behind different arguments. With all due respect, these are the absolute worst arguments I have heard from any member of the anti-homosexual community.My opponent is right in saying that society changes over time, though, and despite those out there who feel there is no hope for our country, I think this itself evidences the opposite. 50 years ago, our society was too shocked at the concept of homosexuality because it was different from what they were used to. 200 years ago, someone might have been flogged or hung for even mentioning having feelings towards the same gender. It is this shock value itself that is harmful to a society. It is why many of the anti-homosexual community makes arguments that link this to other things like incestual relationships. They are so shocked at the concept of something existing that has been different than whay they have been exposed too, that they choose to automatically assume it is a problem rather than weighing it on merit alone and finding similairites to it within heterosexuality. Again if we went back over 200 years ago, many people would be shocked to hear that blacks could be accepted in to todays society. Society has molded to the point now where that group is in minority, and people understand that is was wrong to deny them the same right based on being different. I strongly believe this will be the case with homosexuality as well. If I am to have any hope in humanity, it has to. But I can only base my hopes off of the past, and I honestly think that in 50 years this will have long been blown over and homosexuality will be just as accepted by society and as the difference of culture has.I pass the debate back to my opponent now, in hopes that he will actually argue my points this time around. :)10. http://www.princeton.edu...11. http://www.princeton.edu...12. http://www.nizkor.org...