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

However, to be as kind, but as frank as possible; they are complete and utter nonsense. "Unnatural" and "Immoral"Laws, not necessarily all of the time, but most of the time are based on morality. They are not founded on what is natural or not. Pro may be arguing that if it is unnatural then immorality follows, but of course that is hogwash. Hands are naturally meant for gripping objects and things of that nature, not doing handstands. However, there is no reason to make handstands illegal, or deem handstands wrong. Hair is meant to grow on your body and keep you warm, not to shave off with a razor. However, nobody is going to make shaving illegal any time soon. Thus, even if a penis was meant for a vagina, it would not follow from this that it would be immoral to have sex in a different manner, and that having sex in this different manner should be deemed illegal (you would have to ban oral sex as well under this logic). The idea that illegality or immorality should follow from an "unnatural" scenario is a simply non-sequitur[1]. It seems as if there is no objective connection here in context. Natural Law arguments, as I have shown by using examples, are nothing short of invalid and trivial. Therefore, we have good grounds to dismiss the argument in question provided by Pro. The Fallacy Of My Opponent's ReasoningMy opponent is essentially arguing here that having sex with children, animals, and corpses is deemed unnatural and is illegal. However, having sex with men is deemed unnatural, yet is getting more legal across the board. My opponent just cannot seem to grasp what should be a self-evident difference. It should be noted though, that my opponent's failure to grasp what should be obvious in no way means he has a sound argument. I plan on demonstrating the difference in the next section of this first round. In this section, I will demonstrate an error in my opponent's reasoning independent of any argument for a difference between the categories of sex mentioned. The fallacy of my opponent's reasoning is assuming that because having sex with children, animals, corpses, and men (involved with another man of course) are all "unnatural", that they should all be looked at the same legally. However, this is false. Simply sharing one attribute does not reasonably group all of these situations under one specific, large umbrella. For example, peanuts and peaches are both "edible", but just because schools are allowed to serve peaches freely does not mean this is a gateway to them serving peanuts. They will most likely not openly serve peanuts at school no matter how many other edible things are allowed. This is due to the fact that peanuts cause allergic reactions in a startling amount of children. Basically, there are usually other factors at play besides one measly similarity when dealing with situations like these. Thus, implying that simply because multiple scenarios share one similar attribute (such as being "unnatural"), that this particular government implemented law should have to apply to them equally is a logical fallacy, and is extremely absurd to the furthest extent. The Argument From Consenting Adults"Neither men, children, animals, corpses, etc, etc are able to conceive a child, making them unnatural. However, none of them are choices the people have made themselves. So why should homosexuality be legalized while these other sexual deviations remain illegal? "I will use this section to provide an argument that shows a clear difference in context between:(i) A person having sex with children, animals, and corpses(ii) A man having sex with a man/ a woman having sex with a womanThe difference between (i) and (ii), is that (i) is immoral because there is no mutual consent to sex pertaining to these specific states of affairs. Having sex with children, animals, and corpses may be just as unnatural as homosexual sex between two consenting adults. But it is the consenting adults aspect which is the distinction that makes them rather separate. A child's brain is not developed enough to make adult sex choices according to the law in developed countries[2]. It has been this way for as long as Gay Marriage has been legal, and there are no signs of this being different just because gay marriage is legal. A child may wilfully consent to sex hypothetically, but it is still not considered valid consent under the law because their minds are too impressionable, and there is a high probability that the child cannot fully rationally consent. There is no reason think the government's logic will change on this simply because homosexuals marry. Grown men are able to consent under the eyes of the law; children are not. Obviously, animals and corpses cannot consent either. An animal's brain is not complex enough, and does not have the communication ability necessary. Additionally, a deceased person is not alive to tell us whether he/ she wants his/ her remains being messed with in such a way or not. Due to the argument from consenting adults; I have shown a clear, and compelling reason as to why people having sex with children, animals, and corpses should not be looked at under the same light as adult homosexuality when dealing with legality. Not only that, but my argument, unlike Pro's argument, is actually in accordance with how modern system works! Harry Hay And PedophiliaPro argues that a popular figurehead of the Gay Rights movement and people active in the Pedophile movement are in cahoots. However, this has no bearing on the resolution. Even if they are linked, that does not mean that the Pedophile movement will gain any credibility like the homosexual movement has. If I am a marijuana activist and support the terrorist group Hamas; does that mean marijuana will lead to terrorism if gets legalized? This is prima facie absurd. My opponent's arguments do just not add up logically, and are exceptionally bizarre. ConclusionPro believes that sex with children, animals, corpses, and men should be looked at under the same light legally. I proved why this is false. Sex between two men/ women involves consenting adults. Sex with children, animals, and corpses are not between two consenting adults. Therefore, we have a clear difference that Pro failed to realize that shuts his whole case down with a stroke of ease. Source[1] . http://www.princeton.edu...(logic).html[2] . http://www.avert.org...