Homosexuality is Natural and gay marriage should be legalized

=On Case= 1.Gene Theory --> He concedes that t isn't 100% true, but he argues that thats whee the evidence lies. Extend the argument about "Correlation doesn't imply causation". Unless he can prove a cause not just a statistical correlation, then don't use this as a way to vote Pro. Any parts of his arguments that rely on the gene theory as a warrant you can disregard because it lacks sufficient justification. But even if you buy the gene theory it doesn't link to any benefits anyway, so its not important. --> I concede the argument about it being natural, but my opponent doesn't understand the distinction between intelligence and rationality. Rationality is a specific type of intelligence where the agent can deduce, through a mental process or induce, a conclusion based not on simply what "is" but what "should/ought." It is an interpretation of facts. Therefore we must evaluate all arguments based in a rational view point. 2. Over-population. --> First, in both speeches, he doesnt give you any statistic to warrant how much homosexuality would reduce the growth rate via population. His logic has no links at all. Because we have homosexual marriage, people and society will consume and grow less? -> Second, he claims growth and not population. But his argument only leads to the impact of growth via over-population and birth rates. If the birth rate increases than we will consume and grow more. Growth and birth are intrinsically linked. Since I've proven a global decrease in population, then there will, by extension, less growth and consumption. Extend the Longman evidence. 3. Back-lash -> He completely misses the point i made in my last round about back-lash. He brought up in the beginning that allowing gay marriage would make society more accepting of homosexuals which wold result in less societal back-lash. Then I responded by turning his link. With homosexual marriage, the far-right extremists would view their agenda as being threatened. This would only further galvanize violent action against homosexuals. This links to the counter-plan in that I solve the harm of back-lash. This mitigates his point about back-lash should not warrant continued discrimination. I solve, he doesn't. 4. Suicide -> He doesn't respond to my argument that affirming his plan of homosexual marriage and stopping suicide are not inherently linked. There are other methods like education to stop discrimination within society. Moreover, he doesnt warrant as to why marriage would stop suicides, he just asserts that claim. -> Again point about growth rate is unwarranted, refer to argument #2 =Off Case= 1. Counter-plan -> He argues that the CP is a step in the right direction but says it doesn't solve inequality and right disproportionment. The CP solves ALL the inequalities. He never mentions any rights that are still infringed under the CP. -> He then goes on to say that stopping backlash isn't a reason to support the plan. Yes it is. Insofar as im giving homosexuals the same legal protections under the CP then the CP competes with the plan. However the CP is better because it has the advantage of preventing backlash because it is statistically more popular. So in a formula was have: Pro's Plan = 1 (benefits of marriage) Counter-Plan = 1 (same benefits as marriage, just with a different name) + 1 (stops backlash) = 2 benefits 2 benefits are better than 1, vote Con =Important Extensions from my first speech= 1.Longman Evidence kicks the advantage of growth of consumption 2. Backlash analysis turns my opponents position against him 3. Counter-plan does the exact same thing as Pro except gains benefit of mitigating backlash