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

Pro says my arguments are misguided, but presents a rather lackluster case in favor of this notion. Unnatural "My unnatural argument was solely meant to paint homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and the like all under a similar umbrella." I already provided overwhelmingly sound reasons as to why trying to paint homosexuality, pedophilia, and necrophilia under the same umbrella legally due to them all being "unnatural" is logically fallacious. It would be analogous to saying that punching people in the face should be put in the same group as raising your hand in class on a legal level, because they are both "arm movements". Basically, my opponent is arguing that "x" has a similar quality to "y", therefore, if a rule applies to "x", this rule should apply to "y". However, this is obviously a non-sequitur[1], as it does not follow. Since this argument from Pro is based on an error in logic, it can be discarded as trivial.The SimilarityMy opponent is arguing that I provided no evidence that these sexual deviations are not similar. However, this a red-herring[2] fallacy, as it has no true bearing on what we are discussing. Even if there are similarities, this does not mean that if a rule applies to one, it should apply to all of them. Alcohol shares striking similarities with Pepsi (they are both liquid, come in bottles ect.), but self-evidently, we should not allow children to purchase Whisky simply because it is similar to Pepsi. Simply because two things share some similarities, does not mean that if a rule applies to one, it should necessarily apply to the other. There has to be further grounds for this which Pro is not presenting. Pro also commits the switching the burden of proof[3] fallacy with this statement:"As part of his counter-argument, it is up to him to prove their dissimilarity, which he failed to do." By starting this debate, Pro assumes the burden of proof to establish the resolution. It is only my duty to undermine Pro's claims; not necessarily falsify Pro's claims. The distinction is crucial when taking into consideration the context of this debate.Argument From Consensual AdultsMy opponent commits the straw-man[4]fallacy by claiming that my argument is only based on how things are working right now with regards to the legal system. However, it is based on how things have been pertaining to the legal system for an extremely long time. A reasonable age of consent (16) has been taken seriously in the United States since 1885[5]. There is no sign of this stopping. The age of consent may vary across nations as Pro alludes to, but this argument does not hurt my case any. Children that age (7 or 8 years) being able to marry has been a common state of affairs long before Gay Marriage was the accepted norm. Therefore, it would have been impossible for homosexual marriage to have lead to that type of behavior. This means, my opponent's argument here has no bearing on the resolution; and is truly meaningless.Also, a staggaring amount of relevant groups all over the world that push for Gay Rights are against child marriages:"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (among other charters and conventions) all directly or indirectly forbid the degrading and mistreatment of girls inherent in child marriage. Nevertheless, child marriage is common in many parts of the world..."[6] In addition, Pro commits another straw-man fallacy by claiming my argument is out to show that the stance on pedophilia has not changed over the years. This was never what I was arguing. I was arguing that there is no warrant for claiming that the stance on pedophilic acts have changed as far as legality is concerned in my opponent's favor, or will change in my opponent's favor. There is a huge difference between:(i) Being a pedophile(ii) Physical pedophilic actsInterestingly enough, Pro claims that there is currently an act which was documented and drafted by over 30 psychiatrists called the B4U-Act, that attempts to classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation. There is even a push for it in Canada. Lets say I grant this point, all it does is show that recent developments in psychiatry have lead to attempts to classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation. What it does not show, is that homosexuality has lead to attempts to classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Even if it did show that homosexuality has lead to attempts to classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation, this says nothing on physical pedophilic acts specifically. Therefore, my opponent's argumentation with regards to the B4U-Act is irrelevant no matter which way you slice this fallacious cake.Another argument was made asserting that the age of consent is 12 in Mexico. This is true. However, this does not undermine my argument from consent, because the argument from consent still establishes the distinction in question independent of this fact. The idea that this section from my opponent somehow hurts my argument is based on erroneous, and unsubstantiated assumptions. Harry Hay"Marijuana and Hamas have almost nothing in common, whereas pedophilia and homosexuality as I have shown early have very much in common." - ProShowing things have very much in common, does absolutely nothing to show that acceptance of one is a gateway to another necessarily (or even plausibly). This is the core reason why the my opponent's argument here fails miserably. Coins have things in common with bombs. A coin is some type of "metal" like a bomb for example. This does not mean that we should ban coins because of some false belief that coins lead to bombs due to the fact they are both "metal" objects. Similarly, it is equally outrageous and silly for Pro to posit that because all of these sex acts in question are "unnatural", that therefore one "unnatural" act will be a gateway to another "unnatural" act. Thus, Pro does not have a foundation for the assertion that any hypothetical acceptance of pedophilic acts is/ will be due to homosexual acceptance based on the idea of similarity involving being "unnatural". This is, for lack of a better word, embarrassing for Pro. ConclusionMy opponent's whole case is based on non-sequiturs and red-herrings, and is therefore invalid. This alone clearly negates the resolution, as Pro has the burden of proof. However, my argument from consensual adults proved to be devastating overkill. Pro failed to sufficiently invalidate/ undermine the argument. Therefore, it remains unscathed. As it stands, the resolution has been negated. Sources [1] http://rationalwiki.org...[2] http://www.nizkor.org...[3] http://www.nizkor.org...[4] http://www.nizkor.org...[5] Delinquent Daughters: Policing and Protecting Adolescent Female Sexuality in the United States, 1885-1920. by Mary Odem. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995.[6] http://middleeast.about.com...