The gay marriage ruling in the US should not be overturned

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...