The Instigator
Pricetag
Pro (for)
Winning
64 Points
The Contender
dairygirl4u2c
Con (against)
Losing
30 Points

Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,314 times Debate No: 823
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (27)

 

Pricetag

Pro

Each generation in history has been faced with some form of injustice to overcome; some battle to fight. For Lincoln and the abolitionists it was slavery. For Roosevelt it was depression and unemployment. For Martin Luther King Jr. it was intolerance, prejudice, and segregation. For our generation we have quite a few to deal with—poverty, fear and hatred of all things brown, and what I would like to address here—hatred and oppression of homosexuals whose only crime is that they follow their hearts. Many people point to the idea of choice and religion as to the reasons for their hatred and refusal to bring about equality for homosexuals; these arguments show a clear ignorance to the facts of the situation.

Many opponents of homosexuality justify their intolerance with the popular idea that homosexuality is a choice. However, every scientific article that can be obtained paints a very different picture. According to an October 2006 publication by the Medical Science News," homosexual behavior has been observed in 1,500 animal species." Still sound so unnatural? In fact, 100% of the dwarf chimpanzees, one of man's closest evolutionary relatives, engage in bisexual activities. Among the 1,500, other species that engage in bisexual or purely homosexual behavior are dolphins and killer whales (homosexual), and also lions (homosexual). Homosexuality has been recorded in numerous species from crabs to worms; however, homosexual relationships are most common in communal animals. Another study, conducted in 1993 showed that in humans it has been found that homosexuality usually occurs on the mother's side of the family whenever mapping out a homosexual's family history, which implies a possible "gay gene" on a region in the X chromosome. Although tests on the exact relation between genetics and homosexuality is inconclusive as of yet, there is strong evidence that there is a link. A professor of psychology at California State University at Fullerton has determined that homosexuals are twice as likely to be left-handed and are twice as likely to have a counter-clockwise whorl on the hair at the back of their head compared to heterosexuals. These characteristics point to a link between homosexuality and genetics; however, putting this compelling data aside let's consider the issue logically. Many say that homosexuality is a choice. If you are heterosexual ask yourself this question, when did you choose to like the opposite sex? When did you choose to be physically and emotionally attracted to only the opposite sex? I bet you can't think of a time when you thought, "You know what, I think I prefer the opposite sex to the same one", it just happened that way naturally, correct? So, why is it so far-fetched to think that the same thing did not occur for homosexuals?

Many of the opponents point to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and others in the bible as justification for their intolerance. I ask those who stand behind this argument, do you also stand behind the biblical story of the cursed Ham that perpetuated slavery and racism for centuries and gave justification to one of the most harmful institutions ever established? Is God one who kills mercilessly in response to simple acts of sexual deviance? Is it possible that the story could be an allegory, not to show the dangers and sinfulness of homosexuality, but the sins of overindulgence and instant gratification? Furthermore, I want all those who take the bible literally and are subsequently intolerant of homosexuals to ask themselves this, do you believe in slavery, genocide, child sacrifices, and polygamy? The bible considers these things acceptable in one part or another. If you think those aforementioned items are just as immoral as I believe, then why use the bible's "divinity" to justify this specific intolerance? The fact is that the bible is not an infallible document and shouldn't be considered as such, it's simply not a reasonable stance. Besides the fact that the Bible is not a credible source on all things moral, there is also the issue of the separation of church and state. God belongs nowhere in the government just as the government belongs nowhere in the operations of the churches. The freedom of religion is not a one way street and both sides need to respect it; by using God and religious beliefs in governmental policy the Churches are not holding up their side of the agreement. Do religions want the government telling them how to run their churches? Of course not, so why should the Churches in turn be able to tell the government how to think?

Considering all this data and reason, when it comes right down to it, the issue is one of equality. All scientific and logical evidence points to homosexuality being as natural as heterosexuality. Although many may not be able to accept this simple fact, their prejudices should not stop the 10% of our population from enjoying the same rights that the rest of us enjoy. What I would like all readers to do right now is to imagine that you were born homosexual, that you had these feelings that you simply couldn't ignore. Now, on top of society terrorizing you because of your differences, you are also denied the simple rights and the same benefits that straight people enjoy, such as being able to be open about yourself in the military, get married, or visit your partner when they're in the hospital; how would you feel? It's bad enough that our society isolates and discriminates against these peoples. The government and those who care about social justice need to step up and serve as a beacon of liberty to usher this neglected and abandoned segment of society into true liberty, true freedom, and the true American dream.

Sources:

http://www.news-medical.net... – Homosexual animals.

http://news.bbc.co.uk... - Homosexuality much more
prevalent on mother's side of the family.

http://www.cnn.com... - Physical
characteristics of homosexuals.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

i'm probably not the argument person you'd expect as i have more nuances.

i think my locality, my state should allow it. that doesn't mean other states should have to, as it's not a fundamental right like not being persecuted because of race. when the country was founded, nearly every state had antisodomy laws. surely, if that was allowed, it was probably constitutional. if that's allowed, how would it be that gay marriage which would result in sodomy be such that the public should vote for its existance? the only way it'd happen is if they voted for it.
(i suppose if society changes tos much pastors would just allow it who weren't against it, and the citizens wouln't have to vote to allow it. i'm only against voting for it if you're morally against it such that youw ouldn't vote for it, but that doens't mean i think you should ban it, and so you'd be okay as you're not doing anything wrong by not banning)

homosexuality i agree is natural phenomenon. but, there's really no denying it's unnatural, it's a deviation from the way things are. now, i don't agree, but i think it's reasonable for people to think it's a sin to engage in sodomy etc. but for others, you shouldn't vote for things that you think will result in sins, because you're encouraging it etc.
i ultimately think that if you have a genetic problem, it's not that big of a deal sin wise, and my state should allow it. but it's understanding that the genetic problem should not be encouraged, most like on sin grounds, as i've said, but perhaps on what one would think is natural law. the latter argument i concede is weak.
gayness is not against the natural law as it's natural, but it is a deviation.
Debate Round No. 1
Pricetag

Pro

But it is isn't. It's discrimination because as I have clearly outlined the relationship between genetics and homosexuality is quite strong. In fact there was a recent article that scientists were able to turn a fruit fly homosexual and then straight again through gene manipulation (source-http://www.foxnews.com...). So if we accept that homosexuality is something that you're born with then how can we in turn deny them the same rights that heterosexual people enjoy. I don't think that there are any more anti-sodomy laws left in the U.S. Which shows that just because you find something morally repugnant does not mean you can force your morals on others if that said problem does not hurt others, which homosexuality does not.

Who has the right to say how things should be? Perhaps homosexuality is a natural reaction to overpopulation, in that way it works with the natural order just as homosexuality reproduces. Some find cursing morally repugnant, by your reasoning we should punish people with Tourette's syndrome because if you don't then you would be encouraging the problem, right?
dairygirl4u2c

Con

i've acknowledged it's a natural phenomonenon. but, that does not mean it's something that should be allowed, because, even if it were something good, it appears to be a genetic deviation, not something that is suppose to be. you give the preusmption that it's actually the normal order, but that's not your presumption to make, and you simply assert it's natural.

i agree we should defer to it being natural in my state, because we want to be as equal as possible, and it's not really hurting anyone that bad etc. but, that positive aspect does not outweigh giving other state's their own autonomy.

in addition to techincal legal arguments, allowing other localities autonomy on decisions like this is a moral imperitive. it's about respecting other people's laws and ways of life. now, if it were a clear fundamental right like prohibiting slavery, it'd be universal. but it's not the same, as homosexuality is a deviation that a reasonable person could view as not good.

as a legal argument, just because many do not have those laws anymore does not mean they can't make them any more. the fact they existed in fact shows that the states at least have a potential to make laws similar it, and in this case exactly like it, or very similar to it like gay marriage and its resultant sodomy etc.

banning diseases like you mention is not at all analogous. those people have a disease occurring to them, and it's involuntary.
whereas homosexual people engage in their behavoir voluntariarily: and we're not banning gays... and we're not even banning their sodomy behavior in my system. we're simply not creating laws that would promote or encourage what some perceive to be sinnful; in fact we're not even creating the laws, just allowing the potential for them to be made.
your analogy could only work if the disease person were arguably abusing themself voluntarily, and we didn't want to make laws promoting it. now, you'd argue it's not abusing one self, but that's not always your decision to make in this situation. it's certainly your perogative in your state to have your say in it.
Debate Round No. 2
Pricetag

Pro

"i've acknowledged it's a natural phenomonenon. but, that does not mean it's something that should be allowed, because, even if it were something good, it appears to be a genetic deviation, not something that is suppose to be. you give the preusmption that it's actually the normal order, but that's not your presumption to make, and you simply assert it's natural."

If it's genetic related then how can we be justified in stopping it? If it's something that they have no control over than how can we stop that natural part of their being to run it's course? It's natural because there's more than enough evidence to prove that it's linked to genetics.

"i agree we should defer to it being natural in my state, because we want to be as equal as possible, and it's not really hurting anyone that bad etc. but, that positive aspect does not outweigh giving other state's their own autonomy."

State's rights do not protect discrimination. And with this being a natural characteristic as I have outlined the case is one of discrimination. I don't think that state's rights is an issue here.

"in addition to techincal legal arguments, allowing other localities autonomy on decisions like this is a moral imperitive. it's about respecting other people's laws and ways of life. now, if it were a clear fundamental right like prohibiting slavery, it'd be universal. but it's not the same, as homosexuality is a deviation that a reasonable person could view as not good."

Same argument, it's a case of discrimination because the people involved are born with this characteristic and have no control over it.

"as a legal argument, just because many do not have those laws anymore does not mean they can't make them any more. the fact they existed in fact shows that the states at least have a potential to make laws similar it, and in this case exactly like it, or very similar to it like gay marriage and its resultant sodomy etc."

States used to have segregation laws. They aren't allowed those now because of discrimination, it's the same matter here.

"banning diseases like you mention is not at all analogous. those people have a disease occurring to them, and it's involuntary.
whereas homosexual people engage in their behavoir voluntariarily: and we're not banning gays... and we're not even banning their sodomy behavior in my system. we're simply not creating laws that would promote or encourage what some perceive to be sinnful; in fact we're not even creating the laws, just allowing the potential for them to be made.
your analogy could only work if the disease person were arguably abusing themself voluntarily, and we didn't want to make laws promoting it. now, you'd argue it's not abusing one self, but that's not always your decision to make in this situation. it's certainly your perogative in your state to have your say in it."

If being homosexual is involuntary as I have clearly outlined, than how can it be a sin. Doesn't there need to be some matter of choice to be a sin? Yes they voluntarily participate in sodomy, but that's as voluntary as sexual relations between a man and a woman; it is voluntary but very hard to resist. Our laws aren't simply related to sins either. Adultery is a sin, no law against that. Lying is a sin, no law against that. Not honoring they father and mother is a sin, no law against that. Murder is a sin, and our justice system practices it constantly. I don't think that just because it's viewed as a sin that you can ban it.

In closing I just want to summarize that this case is a case of discrimination. As I have pointed out there is ample evidence linking homosexuality to genetics. Being black used to be thought of as a sinful state dating back to the biblical story of the cursed Ham in this nation and there were many laws put in place to keep black people down. However, the supreme court ruled that it's discriminatory to punish people for being born into a certain condition. As I have outlined, since homosexuality is related to genetics we can safely say that homosexuality is something born into. So, we should use the same rules and say that it is wrong to withhold rights to homosexuals since it is something they are born into and have no control over.

I would like to ask that those voting on this argument vote only on who won the argument and not their own personal feelings toward the subject.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

i hope they only vote for the arguments, because my position is not politically popular, and i don't think you're responding to my points.

You keep repeating that it's natural, and I from the beginning have repeatedly agreed that it's natural. It's genetic. You just keep saying it's genetic. You did say it should be expected to run its course, in the last post. But you didn't say why other than it simply should. That's not an argument.

I made an argument… that it's moral to respect a localities automomy when the issue is reasonably disputed. Slavery etc is not reasonably disputed. The fact that the states had the sodomy laws shows they have that potential; that there's nothing inherent in the constitution to say they can't have moral type laws etc. specifically that they can't have sodomy related type laws like gay marriage.

As to the argument of fundamental nature of the sodomy. Remember, we're not banning sodomy; we're simply not promoting it by passing the laws….. actually we're not even not promoting it; we're only allowing states to decide.
Why can't the states have the autonmy? You haven't responded other than to repeat yourself that it's natural, which I've all along agreed with

You say that homosexuality is unvoluntary like those diseases you mention. I agree with that, I always have. You did not respond to the idea that they engage in the sodomy behavior etc voluntarily though. They're not the same then, for that reason and the reasons I said in my last post.

You say we don't outlaw lying etc. I agree we don't, and along those lines I've agreed we shouldn't ban sodomy. We shouldn't go around banning sins or otherwise bad things as long as it's not hurting others; it infinges on pepole's right to do bad etc. but, I'm not arguing we ban sodomy, as I've already said. I'm only arguing that peple be given the autonomy to not vote proactively for something they think is sinful or wrong. The real analogy then, is not that we're not banning lying; it's that we're not passing laws that encourage or promote lying; or at any rate rate, respecting the autonomy of a locality to decide whether or not it wants to promote lying or not.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
I skimmed through the debate. English points to PRO.
Posted by sydnerella 8 years ago
sydnerella
<i>i've acknowledged it's a natural phenomonenon. but, that does not mean it's something that should be allowed, because, even if it were something good, it appears to be a genetic deviation, not something that is suppose to be. you give the preusmption that it's actually the normal order, but that's not your presumption to make, and you simply assert it's natural.</i>

Even if homosexuality is a genetic deviation, it should obviously be <i>allowed</i>. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the beliefs of eugenics, in which case I think most certainly don't share your point of view.
Posted by artC 9 years ago
artC
Whether somethign is natural or not should never stand in the way of an individuals rights. I don't care whether someone chooses to be homosexual (I don't think anyone does), if I choose to look like a pink elephant I can and I should still get the same rights as anyone else. How can anyone vote against that?!?!?!? I don't get how 7 whole people can be so intolerant. It's ludacris.

And I know these 7 people that voted are just voting on the topic because dairygirl is a horrible debater.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
Pricetag,
They could control it, could they. That is interesting.
And yet, while it may show that the sexuality of a fruit fly is foolable (article you linked me to implied it was only fooled, not changed) or even changable, that hardly means that human sexuality has anything in common with what goes on in fruit flies. How can you compare leisure sex to survival sex? Or sex among people in a culture and some tiny dot that buzz and screw the first other tiny dot they bump into by chance (they have to, since they don't live long enough to meet a second tiny dot by chance.)
Tell me, is S&M genetic? Is getting ridden by a cowgirl, spurred, and lasoed? How about people who mix food with sex? Or foot worshippers? Or sex in public?

I do not deny that humans are genetically related to other animals, and that both engage in sexual practices, homosexual practices included, but what makes you think that human sex can be explained by animal sex when you have given zero account for culture?

In addition to asnwering that, if you can answer this question, I will appriciate it: do animals suffering from overcrowding have more homosexuality (or any other type) during that period of overcrowding? I hope to hear more about that.
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
I just want to say to all opponents to this idea that the fruit fly scenario is a pretty convincing one. The scientists were able to manipulate their genes to turn them completely homosexual with no interest to the opposite sex and only interest to the same sex and then complete heterosexual within an hour of the gene manipulation.

Also if homosexuality was genetic, like I believe it is, then it would have to play out in animals as it does. I have hypothesized that perhaps homosexuality is nature's way of cutting down on overpopulation and that may be way it is seen in most communal animals. Species that try to keep a good balance of numbers.

Also you can't discount all of science based off of a few bad ideas; you have to listen to all the information and research yourself to try to find the best answer. I have done quite a bit of research and truly feel that this is the best answer.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
So if the social environment is to be considered too, how does that affect the question of voluntary behavior? It doesn't. Just because homosexuality is not genetic (or there is no evidence that it is, anyway), does not mean that homosexuality is voluntary.

It is no more voluntary for a "gay", than it is for a "straight" from a country with no interest in breasts who picks up that cultural trait later in life while visiting America and seeing US television sexualize breasts. Did the straight person ask to become attracted to breasts? No.

The sooner people realize that the way we are raised is important too, important enough to have make us want things involuntarily, the sooner we can start veering away from Eugenics-only.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
Amazing that the argument that says "It's not their fault! God just made them the wrong way" seems to be popular with the gay identity activists.

A little worried that eugenics is currently making a comeback thanks to all that support.

I see no evidence that genes make people sexually attracted to members of one sex or another. The closest thing I see is that people all have DNA, therefore it is impossible to rule it out. But that is hardly proof positive.

Animal behavior is hard to translate into human behavior becuase hiumans behave...diferently.
This is due to our leisure time, and our culture.
Fruit flies, as we all know, have no leisure time cause they will all die in an hour. THey zip right to sex, following pheromons because it indicates to them that a member of the opposite sex is there. If they cannot distinguish one sex from another, how can you say that makes them "homosexual"? They are not examining one another's bodies in detail. They are simply makign snap judgements on who seems to be what.
By the thinking of Fox news, if you cut out a man's eyes, and he cannot tell the difference between how a man and a woman look, then he must be bisexual.

Humans take more time to do those things because we don't have to fear that a larger animal will eat us for dinner. We can relax enough to see sex as an art and consider the good, the bad, and the ugly. And while I do not doubt that animals have culture to a degree, it does not appear to come anywhere near teh complexity of human culture, which is diverse and deep. (may be biased, here, being human, and all...) Our leisure time lets us develop that culture, and sex is a part of it.
Thus, culture has much to do with behavior too, especially in humans.
That's why people in some countries do not think of breasts as sexual, but when they move to another country, they get influenced by the local culture and pick up the trait of seeing breasts in a sexual light.
Posted by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
I whole-heartedly agree that discriminating based on sexuality is analogous to discriminating based on social status, religion, gender, race, particularly the latter two. They, like homosexuality, are genetic, and so if we allow women, blacks, Hispanics to have the same rights, then shouldn't we allow homosexuals to have them as well?

Dairygirl mentioned that she thought homosexuality was a genetic defect, probably due to the fact that homosexuals are in the minority. If so, wouldn't this make all non-Caucasian non-males in America genetically defected? To say that someone has a problem because they are different than you goes against everything America is based upon, and is a patently non-American view.
Posted by tjzimmer 9 years ago
tjzimmer
Scientist thought the world was flat. Please explain bisexual ism along with homosexuals that suddenly turn gay or gay to straight because of a divorce or other traumatizing events. There is no way to guarantee it is natural rather more likely socially influenced. One cannot trust science because it has failed us before. Many past rulers have had boy lovers along with loving women, so is it natural for you to choose or is it chosen naturally ahead of time?
Posted by Pricetag 9 years ago
Pricetag
How does the voting system work by the way. When do we know who has won?
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
Pricetagdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Pricetagdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
Pricetagdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
Pricetagdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by sydnerella 8 years ago
sydnerella
Pricetagdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
Pricetagdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by obama0805 9 years ago
obama0805
Pricetagdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by captgeech 9 years ago
captgeech
Pricetagdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by obama0808 9 years ago
obama0808
Pricetagdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Obama0809 9 years ago
Obama0809
Pricetagdairygirl4u2cTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30