The Instigator
Shawnsummer7
Pro (for)
The Contender
RC-9282
Con (against)

The gay marriage ruling in the US should not be overturned

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
RC-9282 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 735 times Debate No: 101172
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Shawnsummer7

Pro

The issue this debate is going to be about is whether or not, as SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch is about to be confirmed, even if given the opportunity the Supreme Court should not overturn the Obergefell ruling which legalized same sex marriage nationwide. I will be arguing Pro (the Supreme Court should not overturn gay marriage). My opponent, of course, will be arguing Con (the Supreme Court should overturn it). The four rounds are as follows:

Round 1 (Acceptance of debate)
Round 2 (Opening statements)
Round 3 (Rebuttals)
Round 4 (Closing arguments)

Good luck to whoever accepts this debate.
RC-9282

Con

Ah. As Con, I accept the responsibility of advocating against gay marriage. Thank you for this opportunity.
Debate Round No. 1
Shawnsummer7

Pro

I would like to open my statement by saying that I find the legalization of gay marriage to be equally a conservative victory as it is a liberal victory. I do not see how it is primarily a liberal issue, and not a bipartisan issue. As liberals typically seek to change the current system, and try to ensure equality for all groups of people in all backgrounds, they believe they have made progress with the Obergefell ruling for placing same sex marriages on the same level as straight marriages. As a leaning conservative, I also found cause for celebration on the day it was legalized.

As a conservative, I do not believe that it is at all the government's place to decide who a man or woman, should they be gay or lesbian, who to marry. I see marriage as an exceptionally beautiful, and personal thing, between billions of different groups of people, that no federal government could begin to understand. Some of my conservative friends have stated their discontent with the ruling, referring to it as an "overreach." But the way I see it, it would be a far greater governmental overreach to suddenly strip millions of LGBT couples of their marriages. I have come to know and be good friends with several gay people in my life, and I am very glad to have had the privilege of meeting them. I would never wish the tyranny that is now being threatened upon them.

If I were a conservative who also happened to be born gay, I would feel very threatened, rightfully so, that it would be entirely possible for the national government to make a new law or ruling taking my right to love and marriage all over again, just with a new majority on the judicial branch - a branch, I might add, is supposed to be apolitical. I would like to ask Con what the difference to him is between the law restricting the right to a free choice of marriage between two individuals, because it conflicts with what the Bible says, and the law restricting the right for an individual to attend the church of his choice, because it conflicts with what the Koran says?
RC-9282

Con

On a personal note, I find homosexual union... distasteful. Not to say I as a person would go out of my way to discriminate or persecute. I typically turn the other way. But I don't see anything beneficial about legalizing same sex marriage. In fact, I believe it to be harmful to societal structure.

I will be arguing these points in my argument, so bear with me. [1] Homosexual relationships destroy the very fabric of a society built upon the concept of a heterosexual couple. It is not beneficial for the children caught in these kinds of homes [2], and as a result, they are not effective individuals in adulthood. My final point will revolve around more medical attributes than social ones, such as homosexual urges being a mental and physical disorder [3].

Social science is traditionally the study of human interactions. Saying this, many studies have surfaced to conclude that gay marriage in no way differs in effects from heterosexual marriages have. But many of these studies suffer from either major flaws, or heavy bias, or perhaps both. One of the primary arguments against homosexual union is the notion that it destabilizes the traditional purpose of marriage: procreation [1]. Suffice it to say gay couples cannot have children, aside from artificial insemination for lesbians. Adoption is an option, but these children are supplied by heterosexual parents. However, studies conducted by the William Institute of Law show that only 17% (111k) of same sex couples are parenting children. Considering the increasingly negative outlook on parenthood among the younger generations, and the fact that legalizing same sex marriage only normalizes it, its not unreasonable to see an accelerated negative birth rate, which the CDC has repeatedly stated we are nearing for several years. Negative birth rates impose a variety of economic and cultural effects that can be quite harmful, as evidenced in countries such as Japan. The fact is that straight relationships are more likely to generate children, which at a steady rate, produces a stable societal system. For all practical purposes, there is no benefit for a homosexual marriage besides personal gain.

Speaking of children, those raised by heterosexual couples are more likely to experience a variety of negative social effects [2], relating both to gender and orientation. These kids are nearly twice as likely than their counterparts to [A], share the same sexual orientation as their parents, or [B] transition to another gender. Provided this, one in two transgender individuals experience sexual assault or other forms of violence in their lifetime, as well as hate crimes. It is also commonly accepted that children need a pronounced maternal figure, as well as a paternal one, not just proxies, but biological parents. The different styles in parenting given by each figure is a social trait as much as it is a scientific one, which is difficult to replicate in a homosexual situation, given the more feminine nature of male couples, and the more masculine nature of female couples (on average). Biological parents plainly differentiate in a few ways. They both play different roles, and they both care for the child differently. Fathers tend to encourage competition and strength, just as mothers tend to emphasize equity and compassion. This may explain the skewed differences between children raised by homosexual couples and their heterosexual counterparts.

There is also sufficient evidence to support the notion that homosexuality is a developmental disorder. This can occur from birth, or it can be caused by an unstable parenting situation. I find this extremely interesting how it ties back into my earlier arguments. A family without defined figures (again, not proxies) is often subject to entirely one sided parenting, not the balance provided by heterosexual spouses. In this case, these are the conditions observed to be more likely to generate a same sex adult out of childhood. I acknowledge that this could be the case in a straight couple, but this likelihood is amplified by a gay parent group. Homosexual relations are also correspondent to abnormal brain activity, as well as hormone levels. All these factors point to these relationships being unnatural. So in turn, why do we seek to give them foothold in our legal system?

As to your final question, I advocate against gay marriage outside of the holy books, so I think the question is irrelevant. I don't care if these individuals continue to have incognito relationships, but legalizing these unions, again, only normalizes it.

Sources:
http://www.cfcidaho.org...
http://npg.org...
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
https://www.ovc.gov...
http://www.frc.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Shawnsummer7

Pro

As we are now in the rebuttal stage, I will be refuting the arguments made by Con in their opening statement.

The first point my opponent made was that homosexual relationships destroy the fabric of society that heterosexual relationships have built. Con went on to say that although numerous studies have been made finding that homosexual marriages in no way differ in effects, many of the studies that have found that to be the case had heavy bias. To that I ask, how does Con know that the few studies made saying that they do were not in any way biased? Additionally, Con says that because same-sex couples are unable to have kids, the legalization would normalize this and there would be a negative birth rate, slowing down or even reversing overpopulation. This is referred to as if it were a bad thing, although there are numerous reasons why this would actually be ideal for humanity. For example, without the overpopulation crisis we are now facing, essential resources such as food and water would not be as scarce. The scarcity of these resources is currently causing a mass extinction of species. [1] However, let"s say that decreasing overpopulation would be bad for humans. Even so, overpopulation is unlikely to be reversed by gay marriage legalization, as in the U.S. alone only 3.5% of the adult population identify as LGBT, as opposed to 96.5% of reproducing straight adults. [2]

On to Con"s second point, I believe he meant "homosexual," not "heterosexual" in the first sentence. Furthermore, researchers from the Columbia Law School examined 76 studies published after 1985 and found that only four of them indicated children raised by LGBT parents were at a disadvantage. [3] As for the horrifying statistic of one in two transgender people experiencing violence, sexual assault, and other hate crimes in their life, I would say that is the fault of the perpetrators, not the individuals who were born transgender. I would also like to see the studies and sources that indicate that male LGBT couples are inherently more likely to be feminine, or that female LGBT couples are inherently more likely to be masculine. I would especially like to see the source that says that it is "commonly accepted" that a child would need specifically both paternal and maternal figures, which would indicate most of the population.

As for the third argument, I find it difficult to believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder when that was proven not to be the case and declassified as such in the 1970s. Furthermore, as a user commenting on this debate brought up, there are medical disorders associated with males, such as colorblindness, hormonal imbalance, depression, suicide, etc. Yet, being born a male is not classified as a medical disorder. Although someone could say that these do not cause a person to be born a male, you could just as easily say that they would also not cause a person to be born homosexual.

Finally, since you have mentioned in response to my initial question that you are not particularly religious and do not use religion to justify your support for gay marriage being overturned by the Supreme Court, I would instead, as a fellow conservative (although a more moderate one), ask you this. Do you, a conservative, believe that a branch of the government should tell a portion of the U.S. population that they are not allowed to marry, even though a federal government could not begin to understand a bond between two individuals?

Sources Cited
[1] http://www.everythingconnects.org...
[2] https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
[3] https://qz.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shawnsummer7 1 year ago
Shawnsummer7
Agreed wholeheartedly Sensorfire. In a reasonable world, this should be a bipartisan issue. Liberals like it because of social progress, and conservatives should like it because it keeps government out of marriage.
Posted by Sensorfire 1 year ago
Sensorfire
It amazes me that debates like these are even being held in this day and age. Honestly, there are no legitimate reasons to be against gay marriage. I think I'm too biased, so I won't end up voting on this debate, but it amazes me what lengths people go to to mask their fear and/or disgust of what they don't know with supposedly logical reasons.
Posted by RC-9282 1 year ago
RC-9282
No, but none of these cause a male to be male. These hormonal imbalances, and mental conditions cause (in part) someone to be homosexual.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
FuzzyCatPotato
The APA disagrees. Consider: there are numerous medical disorders associated with being male, including colorblindness, hormone imbalance, depression, and suicide. Is being male a mental disorder?
Posted by RC-9282 1 year ago
RC-9282
Im not saying there is no conscious aspect to being homosexual, but there are numerous medical disorders associated with homosexuality, including brain activity and hormone imbalance. In this sense it can be considered a disorder.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 1 year ago
FuzzyCatPotato
No, homosexuality is not a disorder. http://www.apa.org...
Posted by RC-9282 1 year ago
RC-9282
I plan to.
Posted by Shawnsummer7 1 year ago
Shawnsummer7
Feel free to state why you disagree with it on moral and scientific grounds in your opening statement.
Posted by RC-9282 1 year ago
RC-9282
I don't appose it from grounds within the bible. I am not a follower of the holy book, at least not yet (agnostic). I appose it from moral and scientific grounds.
Posted by TheMinorMiner99 1 year ago
TheMinorMiner99
This is really interesting, personally for gay marriage (my neighbors are gay) and feel like freedom of love should be expressed, but the other side I can see, as unatural and against the bible.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.