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

Again, my opponent's reasoning is extremely misguided, and I will point out to you why."Unnatural"Again, my opponent has not actually provided any evidence to refute my claims that these things should all be looked at similarly. And again, his attempts at making hyperbole's seem to miss the mark. "Arm movements" are not even close to similar and my opponent's attempts at making a point using these weird examples is exceedingly reaching. As I stated before, the current stance of the physcological world is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, just like homosexuality. To claim that these social demographic issues should be looked at different is actually an error in logic on my opponent's part with no proof to back it up. Other social demographic issues are race, ethnicity, gender...etc. Let it be noted that the laws are all the same regarding every other issue in this category, besides homosexuality, which my opponent has already agreed is changing. Let it also be noted that for every social demographic issue where groups under the same demographic weren't treated the same (ie: blacks being lesser than whites, women being lesser than men, gays being lesser than heterosexuals) has changed or is changing. There is no evidence to support my opponent's claims that this one issue wouldn't follow the same pattern that every other issue like it has. I would like you to strike down my opponent's attempts at non-sequitur and point out that evidence and precedent are not on his side. SimilarityAgain, my opponent's attempts at hyperbole fail miserably. I would like to reiterate what I stated above. Pepsi and alcohol are not social demographic issues. My opponent's failure to comprehend this is not allowing him to make a very strong case against the resolution. Again, historically when groups under the same social demographic umbrella have been treated differently, it has been labeled as "discrimination" and laws are enacted to change it. Racism and Jim Crowe laws were struck down. Sexism was struck down by the feminist movement. And now, sexism is being struck down by the Gay Rights movement. Again, evidence and precedent is on my side, and my opponent is fighting a losing battle with no evidence to support his claims. I would like to note that Con has failed miserably to undermine any of my claims.Consensual Adults My opponent claims that I am arguing against how things have been in the US for a long time. However, the same could be said about the Gay Rights Movement! Homosexuality has been looked down upon for decades here in the US, both socially and legally, but that does not mean it won't change. I would like to strike down my opponent's claims of a straw man and point out his hypocrisy that well-established laws will not change when also advocating the changing of laws pertaining to homosexuality, which themselves are well-established, even longer than the Age of Consent laws in the US! I would also like to point out that while it is true that the lowest Age of Consent in the US has been typically 16 since 1885, before that it was 10 in most states, even as low as 7 in Delaware![1]Also, I would like to further discredit my opponent's claims that 16 has been a "reasonable age of consent" since 1865. In 2001, Hawaii's age of consent was 14![2] This proves that even in the US, is was not a nationally consensus on just how old a child is to consent, which backs up my earlier claims and defeats Con's efforts. My opponent also claims that there is a different between being a pedophile, and pedophilic acts. I concede this point. However, I would also like to further draw a distinction between pedophilic acts of the sexual nature, and pedophilic acts of the marital nature, which is what we are arguing. My opponent also seems to disbelieve that the disparity in ages of consent globally do not hurt his cause, however, it does in actuality. My opponent's main point has been that the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality is the topic of "consent" and that children are not developed enough to legally give consent. However, as I pointed out, the term "child" is much to much of a gray area. In most countries, 12 is certainly a child, and therefore sex involving a 12 year old would be considered non-consensual because a 12 year old can not legally give consent. However, in Mexico, 12 is indeed old enough to give consent. This shows an obvious flaw in my opponent's reasoning. Now my opponent my argue that that is Mexico, not the US. However, a recent student conducted in the US has shown that many children, especially those in low-income neighborhoods have their first sexual encounter at the age of 12 years old on their own accord[3]. Let it be noted that 12 years old was the average, meaning that some were having sex as young as 10, 9, even 8 years old! It is a well-documented fact, done by many professionals that children in today's age are having sex much younger than previously. I argue that this definitely shows that children can consent to sex below the legal age as it currently is in the US. Times are changing and my opponent's belief that laws established 130 years ago still hold true in today's age are misguided. Additionally, I would like to bring forward the evidence showing that children, some as young as 10, maybe younger, have actually been convicted of rape[4]! How absurd a notion is it that a 10 year old boy attempting to have sex with an 8 year old girl, childhood "curiosity", it forever labeled a sex offender! This is another problem with my opponent's Age of Consent argument. As I pointed out earlier, children are having sex at much younger ages now. However, the Age of Consent laws apply to them as well! It is ludicrous to think that these laws will forever remain unchanged, especially when they can also interfere with children's private lives and decisions! This is exactly what was argued in a recent case. Now before my opponent argues that this has nothing to do with the notion, I will point out that by law in most places, children having sex with children are still legally pedophiles! So if the laws change regarding that situation, it does in fact, hurt my opponent's case.Harry HayAgain, my opponent's attempt at drawing a comparison using "coins" and "bombs" fails miserably here. This is three times in one round for pro! I would like to point out that Con has one again completely missed his mark. Again, I was simply arguing because one is unnatural and is becoming legal, the other unnatural thing should become legal. Refer to my first two paragraphs. To claim that a bomb=/= coin is the same as a comparison between two sexual orientations, which are both classified as social demographics is outrageous! I would like to strike down this notion from Con on the grounds that he has completely missed the mark on multiple occasions. ConclusionI would like to mark that the original motion stands, and that my opponent has not provided anything to refute my claims. I would like for the voters to compare the evidence I have provided with the evidence (or, lack thereof) that Con has provided, and it is very clear who has won this debate. I would like to thank Con for his valiant efforts, no matter how misguided.[1]http://query.nytimes.com...[2]http://www.ageofconsent.com...[3]http://archive.news.iastate.edu... [4]http://www.wsws.org...