Homosexuality is Natural and gay marriage should be legalized

I'll put my opponent's case into points plus my refutation so it's easier to follow =On Case= 1. Video about natural vs unnatural homosexuality -> Correlation doesn't imply causation. Just because correlative statistics point in one direction doesn't mean that it's the actual cause. The gene theory is still unproven, so don't accept it as scientific fact. -> Just because an action shows up in nature doesn't mean it is the natural way for humans to behave. Killing happens all the time in nature, but we wouldn't say that killing is a rational act to act on. Of course there are legitimate reasons for killing (different issue) but animals lack rationality whereas humans have this capability, so we can deduce right vs wrong action 2. Over-population – homosexuality prevents this -> First, this argument is completely non-unique. We have homosexuality so according to my opponent's logic we shouldn't have over-population. But if you don't buy that: -> Second, over-population is a fallacious harm. Population is actually in a process of a global decrease of population: Longman 3/27 Phillip Longman is a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of ``The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do about it.", March 27, 2009, "Headed toward extinction?"Darwinism presupposes, and modern biology teaches, that all organisms breed to the limit of their available resources. Yet starting in the world's richest, best-fed nations during the 1970s,and now spreading throughout the developing world, we find birthrates falling below the levels needed to avoid long-term, and in many instances, short-term, population loss. The phenomenon has spread beyond Europe and Asia to Latin America. Brazil, a land once known for its celebration of dental-floss bikinis and youthful carnival exuberance, is an aging nation that no longer produces enough children to replace its population. The same is true of Chile and Costa Rica. Joining them over the next 10 to 20 years, the U.N. projects, will be many other countries Americans still tend to associate with youth bulges including Mexico, Argentina, Indonesia, India, Vietnam, Algeria, Kuwait, Libya and Morocco. Think we need to build a wall on the southern border? Birthrates have declined so quickly in Mexico that its population of children younger than 15 has been in freefall since 2000 and is expected to drop by one third over the next 40 years. The spread of childlessness Fertility remains high in sub-Saharan Africa, but it is falling there, too, even as infants and children die by the millions. In Sierra Leone, for example, the average woman bears more than five children, but nearly one in six die before reaching age 5 and fewer yet make it to reproductive age. But lost in most discussions of the subject is the rapid population aging that accompanies declining birthrates. Under what the U.N. considers the most likely scenario, more than half of all remaining growth comes from a 1.2 billion increase in the number of old people, while the worldwide supply of children will begin falling within 15 years. With fewer workers to support each elder, the world economy might have to run just that much faster, and consume that much more resources, or else living standards will fall. In the USA, where nearly one fifth of Baby Boomers never had children, the hardship of vanishing retirement savings will be compounded by the strains on both formal and informal care-giving networks caused by the spread of childlessness. A pet will keep you company in old age, but it is unlikely to be of use in helping you navigate the health care system or in keeping predatory reverse mortgage brokers at bay. Even countries in which women have few career choices are not immune from the spreading birth dearth and resulting age wave. Under the grip of militant Islamic clerisy, Iran has seen its population of children implode. Accordingly, Iran's population is now aging at a rate nearly three times that of Western Europe. Maybe the middle aging of the Middle East will bring a mellower tone to the region, but middle age will pass swiftly to old age. China, with its one-family-one-child policy, is on a similar course, becoming a 4-2-1 society in which each child supports two parents and four grandparents. Where does it end? Demographers once believed that only as countries grew rich would their birthrates decline. And few imagined until recently that birthrates would ever remain below replacement levels indefinitely. To suppose the opposite is to presuppose extinction. 'An avoidable liability' Yet we see sub-replacement fertility remaining entrenched among rich countries for more than two generations and now spreading throughout the developing world as well. For the majority of the world's inhabitants who no longer live on farms or rely on home production, children are no longer an economic asset but an avoidable liability. At the same time, the spread of global media exposes people in even the remotest corners of the planet to glamorous lifestyles that are inconsistent with the sacrifices necessary to raise large families. In Brazil, birthrates dropped sequentially province by province as broadcast television became available. As the number of women of reproductive age falls in country after country, world population is acquiring negative momentum and thus could decline even if birthrates eventually turn up. Longman's analysis proves over-population false. Therefore my opponent doesn't access the benefit of decreasing population. 3. Prevention of back-lash and Discrimination -> He gives you no warrant as to why this would be true, it's simply an assertion. -> But further I would say that making homosexual marriage legal would actually create more backlash. This is true because it would galvanize far-right extremists since they would view legalization as a very threat on their own world-view. Perception is key when discussing backlash arguments. Since far-right extremists would view this aas a blow to their own agenda they would resort to more violence and hate. Therefore I've effectively link turned the Pro's supposed benefit. By negating you prevent more backlash. 4. Passing of gene or committing suicide -> Remember, the gene theory hasn't been proven true. Moreover we don't know if it can be passed down anyway. His argument is based on unproven facts and unwarranted assertions. -> For the suicide argument, this doesn't require making gay marriage legal. Education on acceptance of gay people could be taught, etc. This is more calling for a mitigation of prejudice than it is revamping marriage statutes. -> He argues that less suicides lead to less population growth….(I'm not advocating suicide) but that doesn't make causal sense. If more people kill themselves we would have less people, not more people. =Off Case= 1. Counter-Plan A) Expand Civil Union Legislation to All States B) Allow Homosexual Adoptions C) Allow tax exemptions for those who do adopt This counter-plan competes with the Pro's plan in that it doesn't make gay MARRIAGE legal. Insofar as there is a legal distinction between marriage and civil unions then my plan is mutually exclusive with the Pro. Advantage of the Plan More popular than the Pro, so less backlash. 1. According to USAToday, civil unions are more popular than gay marriage 54% compared to 40%. This results in less societal backlash than affirming and more accpetance in society. Thus I access 100% of the Pro's benefits. Insofar as this is true the Pro has no unique benefits to compel a Pro vote. This means they have fled to meet burden of proof. 2. Civil Unions have more support from religious organizations and institutions, according to CNN in 2008. This reduces the chance of religious backlash against the homosexual community. Bottomline: his plan results in more harm to his position and leads to more discrimination. C