Homosexuality is Natural and gay marriage should be legalized

=Defensive Argument/No reason to vote off of= 1. Gene Theory --> Even if you buy the Gene Theory argument it has no bearing on the round. Remember he needs to prove both parts of the resolution, being natural and giving sufficient reason to legal gay marriage. --> His only response is that since it's natural people should not discriminate. He gives you no reasons as to why legalizing marriage would make people less discriminatory. --> Bottomline on the Gene argument: no unique impact, doesn't warrant a Pro vote 2. Intelligence vs. Rationality --> He misinterprets my argument. My argument is that as rational beings we can overcome out natural desires through rational analysis, something non-human animals lack. --> But still, no reason to vote off this argument. 3. Over-population and over-growth --> He makes an assertion without giving any sufficient warrant. "True I do not have a statistic to explain how much the growth rate in population would shrink if gay marriage was made legal" Then he goes on to say that removing discrimination would bring people out of the closet which would help provide a stat. HE STILL DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANY REASON WHY LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE LEADS TO LESS DISCRIMINATION. (not yelling, just emphasizing). But later on I'll prove how he exacerbates it. --> He gives you no empirical warrant, or probability as to how many closeted gays marry. The link he makes is nebulous and unwarranted to be a sufficient argument. --> He tries to counter my global population argument by claiming anther author, William Nortons, who claims that the population will increase to 9 billion in 2050. I did a google search and didn't find anything of the sort. I'm not claiming he made it up but I couldn't find it anywhere. So prefer my Author and piece of evidence which provides clear casual links as to how and why the population and thus rate of growth and consumption is on a decline. --> No reason to vote Pro here either. =Offensive Arguments/Reasons to vote off of= 1. Violent Backlash. --> He says we can implement other laws to mitigate the violence. I agree education and laws can be implemented. But the violence and backlash caused in the short-term by right-wing extremists gives a clear reason to reject the legalization of gay marriage. Loss of life from violence is irreversible, I outweigh on the harms. For the protection of homosexuals in the US it is necessary to reject gay marriage and promote civil unions. The Counter-Plan solves this, vote Con. 2. Counter-Plan --> His only argument is that it is still unequal to have civil unions and gay marriage. Remember, he has conceded that the Counter-Plan gives all the same rights. So basically his argument is based on semantics and language. Since "civil union" is a different term than "marriage" then it is unequal. First I would say the benefit of mitigating short-term backlash and violence outweighs any semantical inequality. But second, semantical inequality isn't inequality a all since language changes and definitions change. The objective substance that we are debating is the same in both marriages and civil unions. The 14th Amendment protects rights, not names and labels. --> Vote Con on the Counter-Plan. A) It gives equal rights B) As proven in above speech is popular within society which mitigates backlash - Con protects more homosexuals from violence. C) The Pro lacks any offensive/reason to vote arguments. Even if you buy some of his defensive arguments, it has no bearing on theround since the links are nebulous to making gay marriage legal.