Same-Sex Marriage Will Lead to Marriage Involving Animals, Siblings, or Children

I do not need as much room for this round, as most of Pro's arguments are red herrings[1] and have little to no bearing on the resolution. Unnatural Pro comes out of the woodwork here with a red herring[1]. He argues that I never disputed the similarities he mentioned. I agree that I did not dispute the similarities he mentioned. What I did was dispute was the erroneous conclusion that Pro attempted to derive from the similarities he mentioned. Pro commits the shifting the burden[2] of proof fallacy by claiming that I have to prove him wrong on this issue. However, he started the debate and bears the burden of proof. Also, my opponent commits the special pleading[3] logical fallacy here by claiming that it is alright to assert that multiple things are equal as far as legality is concerned if they all share one property (being "unnatural"), but this does not apply to any of my other examples. Pro never even argued that there was a feasible difference in context.The main fallacy that my opponent is engaged in however, is the fallacy of false equivalence[4]. Here is an example:"Marijuana and alcohol are both drugs. An ounce is about the same as three bottles. If you think one should be legal, you should think the same of the other."[4] Pro is arguing that homosexual acts/ marriage and pedophilic acts/ marriage are both unnatural. If you think one should be legal, you should think the same of the other. However, this self-evidently does not follow. Since Pro's entire case is based on this elementary fallacy; it can be dismissed as logically invalid. SimilarityPro says that Pepsi and Whiskey are not the same demographic issues. However, if this holds, then I can just say the same thing about homosexual marriage and pedophilic marriage. They are not on the same page, as one is accepted and legal, and the other one is rejected and illegal (If one is allowed to marry; they are an adult by definition). Any similarities between the two are completely analogous to the Pepsi and Whiskey analogy I put forward.Argument From Consenting Adults This served a huge blow to Pro's case. This is evident due to the fact that he started off the debate defending the notion that animals, corpses, children, and men (with other men) are all under the same umbrella. However, my argument completely demolished his arguments pertaining animals and corpses. Pro dropped those arguments because of this. In a desperate attempt to recover, he spent the entirety of this section showing that there is a "gray" area when it comes to what is considered a child; many sources were used to back this notion up. However, Pro has not shown how that has any bearing on the resolution, or my argument. It just seems as if he was posting random, irrelevant facts. Even if there is a "gray" area; I demonstrated a sufficient difference pertaining to the particular sex/ marriage acts mentioned. Thus, my opponent was just running around like a chicken with his head cut off at that point, as nothing he said in his last round actually refuted my argument.Harry Hay Once more, the special pleading[3] fallacy is being committed. Pro is arguing that he can derive equivalence between two things based on a similarity, but I cannot. His "demographic issue" argument fails, because it begs the question against my examples having the relevance mentioned. Pro never argued in favor of this. Additionally, Pro does a good job of summing up his fallacy below:"Again, I was simply arguing because one is unnatural and is becoming legal, the other unnatural thing should become legal" - ProI agree with my opponent's assessment of his argument above. However, as I already showed, Pro is committing the fallacy of false equivalence[4]. ConclusionMy opponent has a burden of proof to establish the resolution. The argument given is based on the fallacy of false equivalence[4]. Since his argument is logically invalid, it can be dismissed. Pro inadvertently concedes that the argument from adult consent took care the animal and corpse aspect by dropping those points. However, his rebuttals to the argument pertaining to children were red herrings[1]. Also, siblings were never mentioned, so:"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens[5]It should be self-evident that Pro did not fulfil his burden. As it stands, the resolution has been negated.Sources[1] http://www.nizkor.org...[2] http://www.nizkor.org...;[3] http://rationalwiki.org...[4] http://www.skepticalraptor.com...[5] http://www.ted.com...