The Instigator
Siege
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/15/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,998 times Debate No: 34799
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)

 

Siege

Pro

My opponent and I will be arguing one of the historic anti-gay marriage debates. The statement is that the allowance of gay marriage can serve as a "gateway" for the allowance of other types of relationships which go against the societal "norm", including animals, children, siblings, corpses, etc, etc. "Marriage" in this debate is defined as a legal and binding relationship recognized by United States government. No semantics arguments.

First round is solely acceptance.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Present your case.
Debate Round No. 1
Siege

Pro

First, I would like to thank RT for accepting this debate and allowing me my second debate on this site.

To begin, I would like to define exactly how sexual attraction between similar species works, and how homosexuality differs from it. The sole purpose of attraction is the want to procreate, and thus pass on our genes and continue our species. This is basic biology. The family unit within the human species serves mainly to ensure the survival of the offspring until adulthood, when they are then able to fend for themselves and themselves procreate.

So how does homosexuality differ from this? Easy. To begin with, two males are unable to procreate together. This defeats the basic biological purpose of sexual attraction. To be frank, it's unnatural.

Now my opponent may argue that if it's unnatural, why are people born as homosexuals? Research certainly shows that people are born "gay", and that no amount of therapy or counseling is able to change their sexual orientation, no matter how much of a stigma it is in today's society or how difficult their sexual orientation makes their personal lives. And to be honest, I don't know why some people are born attracted to the opposite gender. But here's the problem with that argument: the same argument can be applied to almost anything. Like homosexuals, pedophiles are "born" attracted to children. It is not a fact that they can change, and is truly a physiological deviation which deviates from the social norm. 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?

Now my opponent may believe that this is all conjecture, and that these are all separate issues, however, this is not the case.

If you ask anyone who the "father" of the modern Gay Rights Movement is, most would say Harry Hay. But two seconds of research into his personal life shows that among the groups he supported was NAMBLA, or the National American Man/Boy Love Association, a group which advocates for rights of pedophiles and the legalization of marriage between a man and a child. This group has also been a part of numerous LGBT parades, including the "Spirit of the Stonewall" march in 1994. Is Harry Hay an isolate incident, an outlier, perhaps? I argue that it is wrong to assume that the man who propelled the Gay Rights Movement to where it is today was alone in his beliefs. Likewise, there are many other examples of Gay Rights and Pedophilia Rights groups advocating together.

With this I present to you my argument that gay rights and the other sexual deviations are one in the same, and it would be both illogical and unfair to only legalize one when the same argument could be made for all sexual deviations. Not only this, but the fact that Pedophile Advocacy groups have been intertwined with the Gay Rights Movement since its inception shows that there really is no way to separate the two, and by legalizing one, it is only a matter of time until the other is legalized.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I thank my opponent for his opening arguments. 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 Reasoning

My 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 woman

The 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 Pedophilia

Pro 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.

Conclusion

Pro 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...

Debate Round No. 2
Siege

Pro

I would like to thank con for his arguments, however misconceived they may be.

Unnatural

Con seems to have misinterpreted my beginning argument. His statement that illegality should not follow unnatural arguments is true to some extent, except that is not what I was saying. My unnatural argument was solely meant to paint homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, and the like all under a similar umbrella. I never once stated that this is the reason why homosexuality should be illegal. I was merely pointing out how they differed from societal and natural “norms” - all for the same reason. Though a valiant effort, con's opening counter-argument seems to have missed the mark and didn't actually counter anything I said previously. I ask that his entire opening paragraph be dismissed.

The similarity

My opponent attempted to discredit my claim that these sexual deviations are similar. However provided no evidence. As part of his counter-argument, it is up to him to prove their dissimilarity, which he failed to do. Because my opponent failed to back up anything he has said thus far, I must also ask you to disregard this paragraph as well.

Consent” argument

My opponent would like to draw a distinction between pedophilia and homosexuality by stating that children can not legally give consent. However the fallacy of this viewpoint is that his entire argument is based off what is legally acceptable right now, and as you have seen with gay rights in many places, laws change. Additionally, the “age of consent” is different among various countries. In Mexico it is as low as 12. Further, there are many places (the Middle East) where children get married and taken as brides as young as 7 and 8 years old [1]. Even if they can not give consent, their parents can. Again this is already true in many countries in the Middle East, so Con's argument that this is not the way society works is both fallacious and unfounded.

Additionally, Con attempted to argue that there is no evidence that the stance on pedophilia has changed simply because gay marriage is becoming more acceptable. However, I would like to repute this with sheer evidence. In actuality, there is currently an act which was documented and drafted by over 30 psychiatrists called the B4U-Act which attempts to classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation[2]. There is already a push for it in Canada. So for Con to argue that there is no evidence that the stance on pedophilia is changing is simply untrue. Also, an article published by Harvard in 2010 directly says that “Like other sexual orientations, pedophilia is unlikely to change.”[3] So we now have one of the top universities in the world classifying pedophilia as a sexual orientation, just like homosexuality, yet Con continues to try to draw a clear distinction between the two. It is clear to see that his views are misguided and not based in fact, nor the reality of today's world. Additionally, the same publication by Harvard defines pedophilia as an attraction to anyone 13 or younger. However, again, in Mexico City, the age of consent is 12. So if someone in Mexico is attracted to a 12 year-old, are they a pedophile? According to Harvard's classification they are. However, by Mexico City's own laws, they are not. This further discredits Con's “consent” argument.

Harry Hay

Con seems to try and discredit the links I drew between homosexuality and pedophilia with bizarre hyperbole's which don't actually address the issue. Marijuana and Hamas have almost nothing in common, whereas pedophilia and homosexuality as I have shown early have very much in common. It is clear to say how Con's hyperbole completely missed it's mark. A better hyperbole for con would have been if he was one of the main and most vocal marijuana advocates, who also supported the legalization of the drug "Salvia". If he and many of the other well-known marijuana advocates supported the legalization of Salvia, it is not a stretch to say that if marijuana is legalized, Salvia could be next when the same arguments (ie: they are harmless, personal choice, are taxable) can be made.

Conclusion

With this, I have made it clear that not only are homosexuality and pedophilia similar, but that there is also an ongoing movement to change how we view pedophiles. Needless to say, this basically makes my point for me. Additionally, I have struck down Cons attempts at counter-arguments with relative ease and put forth the notion that my opening argument remains irrefutably true.

[1] http://frontpagemag.com...
[2]http://b4uact.org...
[3]http://www.health.harvard.edu...
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

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 Similarity

My 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 Adults

My 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 acts

Interestingly 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." - Pro

Showing 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.

Conclusion

My 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...
Debate Round No. 3
Siege

Pro

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.

Similarity

Again, 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 Hay

Again, 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.

Conclusion

I 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...
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

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.

Similarity

Pro 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" - Pro

I agree with my opponent's assessment of his argument above. However, as I already showed, Pro is committing the fallacy of false equivalence[4].

Conclusion

My 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...
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Siege 3 years ago
Siege
Ragnar, I think both RT and myself took this debate pretty seriously, as this is an actual argument made by those against gay rights. However, it is not a point that I agree with and I just wanted to attempt to defend the position
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
This is a troll debate right?
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
who say pro is ignorant. lol.
this is true.
man this is true.
see the mental illness the cause of mental illness in the USA. there is name for this thing.
i will post sooner. the disease has name which is cause of being involved in these activities.
which ashamed u and physiologically hurts u and make u sick.
Posted by Siege 3 years ago
Siege
Yeah man definitely. Just so you know, I definitely don't agree with anything I was saying, and was just having fun debating difficult positions. Great debate.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
man leave..................................
i cant say things.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
well one more thing social engineering program of UNO.
and how is daddy of UNO.
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
check the mental disease in USA.
and the reason behind this.
and also check the books of Zionist.
i cant explain much.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Thank you for the debate Siege! Even though we disagree, I respect your debating skill. You will definitely make a valuable addition to the debate.org community.
Posted by yoyopizza 3 years ago
yoyopizza
@GOP, What are you talking about? The verses about gays and shrimp are in the same book, and what gives you the right to decide what is relevant? Also, the bible says that god is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Meaning that he applies to everyone at all times.
Posted by Siege 3 years ago
Siege
Juris, click "rich text" at the top/side
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
SiegeRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented some interesting facts, but as Con pointed out, virtually none of them supported his original slippery slope argument. Props to Pro for arguing from a difficult position, though.
Vote Placed by gt4o2007 3 years ago
gt4o2007
SiegeRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no evidence to support his ignorant claim
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
YYW
SiegeRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: To begin, I have to say that I like CON's style -which is pretty rare when I read these debates. PRO made a series of relatedly warrantless claims regarding the impact of same sex marriage and issues of sexual morality. CON demonstrated the extent to which PRO's case was essentially baseless speculation and cleverly noted that PRO's argument essentially rested on either false claims of equivalence, logical invalidity, or extraneous information -i.e. tangential nonsense. As CON so effectively noted: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.? ? Christopher Hitchens. This was fairly enjoyable to read.
Vote Placed by yoyopizza 3 years ago
yoyopizza
SiegeRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both were great debaters with good conduct, but Pro's argument made little to no sense. Con easily won the debate.