The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Does sexual orientation deserve the same discrimination protections as race or gender?

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
FactsVsFeelings has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 251 times Debate No: 94756
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Round 1: Definitions and claim.
Round 2: Opening arguments.
Round 3: Counters and second arguments.
Round 4: Counters and closing arguments.

Sexual orientation:
A person's sexual identity in relation to the gender they are attracted to.



Greetings, let me just say that I am excited to debate my opponent and I wish him all the luck in the world. Since you missed a few definitions allow me to add the missing ones. Let me also add that I will be taking the Libertarian argument. Which is essentially "The government is bad at everything, let people deal with it as they will." I'm sure my Libertarian opponent can appreciate that.

Discrimination: Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit.

Protection (In regard to discrimination in the context of sexuality and/or sexual orientation): The State, at point of gun essentially, coercing and forcing participation and/or acceptance of an act or a belief that conflicts with a person's freedom and rights.
Debate Round No. 1


Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that marriage was a constitutional right, thus allowing same-sex couples to get the same marriage rights as traditional couples. While this was a leap in the right direction, many states in the US still have no protections from discrimination based upon sexual orientation [1]. These states it is perfectly legal to deny someone services, a job, and even insurance due to their sexual orientation. These are protections placed by gender, race, marital status, and religion. We live in an era where we are a united society, our nation is secular and science has shown countless possible leaps in human behavior.

First, we will tackle the argument that homosexuality or bisexuality are unnatural. This was a common argument by the right side during the same-sex marriage debate. Scientists have observed many instances of animals exhibiting same-sex attraction [2]. There are even observed cases of frogs that change their entire biological sex to further their species. However, this is not a debate on gender identity but sexuality. Homosexuality can be observed throughout human history. It is expressed greatly in identical twins [3], and it has practical use in the evolutionary theory of darwinism.

Humans have lust as to avoid mating seasons, as most animals have. This allows us to procreate constantly. It is hypothesized that homosexuality-linked genes have survived in our species for the purpose of population control and parenthood in a single sex environment. All of these can lead to the educated inference that homosexuality is a natural occurrence across the animal kingdom and in humans.

Works Cited:
[1] :


As this is not a debate on if Homosexuality is natural or right (Judging by the title of the debate at least) I'll be ignoring all your off topic arguments. And launch into building my case. As a Libertarian it is my belief that the Government does not have the authority nor the need to interfere when it comes to such things. When the Government boosts one group above another that is when the issue begins.

It may be an overdone argument but it is indeed a powerful one. The case of Arlene"s Flowers in Washington state. Barronelle Stutzman, a flower shop owner in Washington State, sells flowers to a gay couple for years. She is friendly with this couple and harbors no hatred toward them. One day the couple come to her, "We're getting married?!" they tell her. They then make a request, they ask her to supply the flowers for their wedding.

Now this woman, a religious Christian, has no problem with the gay couple. As the old adage goes "Hate the sin love the sinner" (Note: I am not making an argument of Christianity as right or wrong, merely saying this is her reasoning). However, she would rather not supply the flowers to their wedding because she does not support homosexuality and does not wish to participate.

Now, in a Free Market Miss Stutzman has the right to refuse service to anyone she chooses. If she would rather only serve five foot albino men then that is her right. Regardless of her reasons. In this Free Market other shops open up, they serve all people even five foot albino men. What happens to this flower shop owner? They are put out of business. There is only one thing that matters in a free market, green, and green does not see colour or race or even sexuality.

However in this story, the loving Government that my opponent wishes to use to force acceptance on people gives Miss Stutzman a choice. "Serve the gay couple and pay $2,001 in damages and legal fees, or shut down your business." This is the wonderful Government anti-discrimination that my opponent wishes to enact. Participate and accept things you don't like or the Government will force you to. That is not what Liberty and Freedom are about. This is about taking away the rights of some in order to force participation in things in which that person may not agree.

The case of Arlene's Flowers is not the only case of it's kind. Since the Supreme Court's decision to decide that the Government gets to decide what marriage is, the issue has turned to "Participate or we'll make you." What you are asking is for the government to force participation at point of gun.

The point is, of course, that as per our definition of Discrimination it can be in favor or against something. When it comes to the State making laws having to do with discrimination it often turns to in favor of one person's right at the expense of being against another person's rights.

Famous Libertarian Ben Shapiro gives a similar argument in this video.

My final argument is that no such laws are needed. What good does it do? All it does is make you feel good. You brought up the Political Right and Left in your 'argument.' This is not a Right and Left argument this is an argument between what does good and what feels good.

I can accept these laws when it comes to discrimination against a person based on their colour or their gender. Those are laws that do good. These laws have uses because you can see a person's colour or race. When applying for a job you are asked to provide these after all. What you are not asked is what gender you are attracted to. This is also pointless since I cannot look at you and know you are gay. The only good a law would do is it would make you feel good. At least you can say you voted against "Bigotry and Homophobia!"

Debate Round No. 2


My opponent states my defense of the nature of homosexuality to be off-topic, but rather they are structure for these laws to be put into place. The fact that one can be denied insurance, employment, and even services based upon their sexual orientation is outdated and falls behind the modern times. My opponent also states that since sexuality is not visible, it does not verify protection. Does this mean we are to not bring our significant others to work functions, such as luncheons or outings? Or, to be very specific, the ability to obtain fertility treatment.

Take a recent case in New Jersey [1], lesbian couples are suing due to having to have unprotected sex with a man to prove infertility and claim insurance. Many lesbian couples choose artificial insemination to procreate, however if they are infertile do we expect them to pay for it out of pocket? This is a luxury that is clearly unavailable to lesbian couples. If you'd like to take a look at the law, it can be found under Title 17 of the New Jersey Permanent Statues. However, an excerpt from an infertility website explains it as follows [2],
"New Jersey fertility treatment insurance law clarifies the definition of infertility. According to the section, infertility refers to the disease or condition that results in the abnormal functioning of the reproductive system, in which a person is unable to impregnate another person, become pregnant by trying to conceive with unprotected sexual intercourse after two years if the woman is younger than 35, or one year of unprotected sexual intercourse if the woman is 35 or older, or carry a pregnancy to produce a live birth."

It clearly states that infertility is proven by unprotected heterosexual intercourse. Now, while I'm sure this is simply a case of a law that needs slight amendments, but it shows that homosexual couples are still not equally seen in the government as heterosexual couples.

Another example of a law flawed in this way is under the Fair Housing Laws [3]. It clearly states there are protecting that landlords may not discriminate against sex, national origin, religion, gender, disabilities, and familial status. I believe it to be a fair assertion that housing is a right that every American should fairly have. While most establishments will focus on money rather than personal orientation, there are still occurrences of this discrimination to this day. This form of discrimination is no different than being kicked out if your landlord were to find out your religion affiliation.

While we do live in a Free Market, there are laws in place that prevent denial of service based on gender, race, and religious affiliation. It is a fair assertion to say that a person should not be denied a dentist due to his skin color, yet we still allow this to happen to non-heterosexual individuals. While sexuality is not visible, are we to simply hide it? Are we to be forced into yet another occurrence of the Don't Ask Don't Tell act? It's no secret that same sex couples have issues displaying their relationship in public settings as it is, which is a social issue, but is it fair to assert that they are not to show affection in private health clinics or major decisions? These are important things in our lives, in everyone's life, that can be denied to people based on their orientation.

We are a secular nation that prides itself in its freedoms and equality, but where do we draw this line? If we allow the freedom of denial of service then we lose equality, yet if we include equality we lessen small freedoms. It is a matter of weighing the damages.

Works Cited:
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
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by FactsVsFeelings 2 months ago
I thought I had more time for my round. Regrettable.
Posted by bman7720 2 months ago
I will post my argument as soon as I can sit down and structure it properly, with school and work and local campaigns, I may be a few days between arguments.
Posted by TheBenC 2 months ago
If I identify as an attack helicopter, do I get special protections and rights?
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.