The Supreme Court's decision to uphold gay marriage was correct
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Argument
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Closing Statements
1. BoP is shared
2. All numbers, facts, and quotes must be cited, but citations are not necessary
3. No new arguments may be introduced beyond Round 2
4. Debate structure and rules are final
The decision made by the Supreme Court (Obergefell v. Hodges) to strike down the ban on same-sex marriage was correct.
I wish my opponent luck and, above all, to have fun.
When it comes to a subject related to morality, correctness is nothing but subjective. Morality, nonetheless, changes according to the generation we live in. These issues were once thought of as morally and spiritually correct, but now we see it as abominable practices: enslaving black people, killing handicapped babies, burning infidels and so on ad so forth. Because of slavery, capitalists were able to collect great fortunes that eventually led to the industrial revolution. The Spartans, for example, killed their handicapped babies and so were able to build a solid and strong civilization that eventually destroyed the persians and kept their families alive and safe. Because of the killing of infidels, several nations grew stronger and united, because most of its citizens believed in the samething.
All of these comparisons are somewhat maquiavelic and I don't hold them as my personal opinions. What I want my reader to understand is that all those assumptions about those morally wrong practices were once believed to be true and, indeed, have some truth to it. The only difference we have today is the priority we give to certain variables. Today, it is better for us to live and cooperate with black people in the same society than to enslave them. Today it is better to keep and take care of handicapped babies than to kill them for the sake of better genetic lineage. Today it is better to cooperate with other religions than to kill one another for the sake of homogeneity of belief.
Try to realize that if we want a better and handicap free genome, we have to kill our handicap, and for that purpose, the killing is correct. However, if we want a society where parents don't feel afraid of having to give their sons and daugther away to be slaughtered, if we want to be free to love and care for whomever we desire, then it is correct not to kill the handicap. And the same applies to every other moral subject. Now whether we should have a perfect genome or be free to love is a matter of opinion and no one has the authority to decide which is right.
When it comes to gay marriage, the same rule applies: if we want to be allowed to love whomever we may, then gay marriage should be allowed. However, if we want a society where most of the people are heterosexual for the sake of reproduction, homogeneity of opinion, we should decrease exposure to homossexual behavior and forbid them to marry and have children or to spread there genes. Both means are correct to achieve their respective objectives. Which objective is correct? That's subjective and no one has the authority to say one or the other.
Now my fellow reader, when you think you have the right to decide if a moral subject is correct, you incur in the same problem our ancestors throughout our history did. When you think your moral views are the correct ones, you may kill infidels for the sake of morality. When you think your moral views are correct, you may enslave the black people because they are nasty and filthy sinners. Our morality changes and will keep changing according to what our generation values more. I disagree that the decision to uphold gay marriage is correct. It may be a decision that will decrease the feeling of isolation that the gay people feel, it may open way to religious people to be more empathetic, but it is only correct for those purposes.
Again: when you think your moral views are correct, you could be just as wrong. Allowing gay marriage will serve its purpose and only that. Whether this purpose is right, no one can say. And because of this, I hold your claim as wrong and misleading. If someday gay marriage becomes banned again, that decision would be just as correct as this one.
Before I begin my argument, I would like to point out to my opponent that the first round was for acceptance only, not an opening argument, hence the 4-round system. I would ask that my opponent bye the second round and let their opening argument stand in the spirit of fairness, as I have yet to put forth an argument.
Correctness is, quoting my opponent, "a property of something applied to certain rules." However, in this situation, the Supreme Court is bound to a very specific and laid-out set of rules, The Constitution. The Supreme Court, referred to throughout as SCOTUS, is the body of power in the United States tasked with being the ultimate authority on the constitutionality of a piece of legislation, or whether it is within the bounds set in the Constitution. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, SCOTUS decided to strike down state bans on same-sex marriage.
The decision to strike down these bans was, in fact, the correct one. The justices decided that, as marriage is a legal right, it must be offered to everyone. There is no denying that, in the US, marriage is a legal contract. A married couple is able to: file joint bankruptcy and taxes, assume greater benefits from programs including Medicare, jointly own or freely transfer property, have joint adoption and custody, make medical decisions for spouse and children, and obtain 'survivor benefits' from a spouse who has passed away. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) To say that marriage is a strictly religious bond is clearly untrue.
In order to say that the Court's decision was correct, the Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment, must be studied. The 14th amendment states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (https://www.law.cornell.edu...)The most important part of this phrase is "nor deny... the equal protection under the law." This means that, in the eyes of the law, everyone must be offered the same opportunities and treated equally. Having said that marriage is a legal contract, it quickly becomes clear that a State ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Just as SCOTUS determined, denying same-sex couples the right to a legal marriage is a direct violation of the 14th amendment.
While the decision to strike down bans on same-sex marriage seems like a 'popular' decision, or the 'obvious moral choice,' it is clearly the correct decision based on the law of the land, The United States Constitution.
dhulke forfeited this round.
Because both my opponent and I have posted one argument, we will continue as planned, beginning with rebuttals in round three.
My opponent opened his argument by defining 'correct' in order to best fit the Resolution. I would agree with his definition "Correctness is a property of something applied to certain rules." However, I would disagree with his interpretation of the Resolution. My opponent chose to view the Resolution in a moral sense, as if to determine the correctness of same-sex marriage itself. However, the Resolution was asked specifically of the decision made by SCOTUS on June 26, 2015.
My opponent discussed correctness being of a circumstantial nature, and how slavery and burning people alive were once considered correct. He discussed how, looking back, these things are undeniably wrong. Nonetheless, when they occurred, they were correct. In fact, my opponent ends his argument by writing "If someday gay marriage becomes banned again, that decision would be just as correct as this one" implying that this decision was the correct one.
Having said this, the argument my opponent gave did not relate directly to the question. He says that "When it comes to a subject related to morality, correctness is nothing but subjective." However, this is not a subject related to morality. It is a legal battle. And as I have shown, according to The Constitution of the United States, SCOTUS made the correct decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges case.
dhulke forfeited this round.
As my opponent has forfeited his rebuttal round, all of my arguments still stand.
SCOTUS's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges was correct. With a quick review of the Constitution, it can be discerned that marriage, as a legal contract, is protected by the Constitution. By the Fourteenth Amendment, denying equal protection under the law to any person is unconstitutional. Therefore, it would be unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, as it is a legal right and is therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. By the rules of the Supreme Court, the Constitution, striking down the ban on gay marriage was correct.
dhulke forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.