The Instigator
MQGalabuzi
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrMagic
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

The Anti Homosexuality Bill will help prevent homosexuality among families in Uganda

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
MrMagic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 574 times Debate No: 46643
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

MQGalabuzi

Pro

Reference is made to the recently signed anti homosexuality bill in Uganda by the Ugandan President
MrMagic

Con

There are very strict time limits on this debate so I shall have to be brief. Pro is arguing the case that legistlation can affect not only human attraction... but the total sexuality of a person. Not only this, but that it can affect it in such a way as to "help" prevent attaction to half of an entire species.

There are so many points in this to contend that I bearly know where to begin. First, homosexuality has been illegal in both the UK and the US historically and during both of these periods, homosexuality was rife. More recently homosexuality has been made illegal in ghana and yet "Homosexuality is on the increase in Ghana despite police brutality against homosexuals who are arrested and brought to the police stations." (http://www.ghanaweb.com...)

Second, as equally as a heterosexual is not attracted to all members of the opposite sex, homosexuals are not attracted to all members of the same sex. Moreover, it is likely that the inverse in also true. Whilst heterosexuals are unattracted to most, it is unlikely that they are unattracted to all. As freud notes regarding latent bisexuality " The conception which we gather from this long known anatomical fact is the original predisposition to bisexuality, which in the course of development has changed to monosexuality, leaving slight remnants of the stunted sex." (http://www.gutenberg.org...) Those slight remenants being what I was refering too. In a sense this bill is attempting to legistlate against a natural part of the human psyche. They may as well try to make it illegal for people to have ten fingers or to ejaculate at climax!

The final point that I shall raise is a pre-emptive counter to pro's likely fall back, which is the fallecy that was used to argue this law into being. That it was simultaniously against God, Evolution and Ugandan culture.

It is catagorically not against Evolution as has benn written about hugely (not least here http://www.debate.org...), neither is it against Ugandan culture because there are homosexuals who are clearly Ugandan and therefore part of ugandan culture. As for whether the bible expressedly opposes homosexuality... there is still debate regarding this (http://iammrmagic.blogspot.co.uk...), though even if it does, Uganda is not a theocracy!

Back to you :)
Debate Round No. 1
MQGalabuzi

Pro

MQGalabuzi forfeited this round.
MrMagic

Con

Ummm... ok. I suppose I was expecting a more fierce debate, especially when we take the extremely tight Time limit into consideration.

Or perhaps my pre-emptive counter arguement was so devistatingly brilliant that it silenced my opponent?... yep, actually I think I am going to go with that theory.

Either way, there are several other points of contenture with regards to this debate subject. How is this law to be enforced? How is the evidence to convict going to be gathered? How does this coincide with Ugandan privacy laws (if there are any) as we are discussing extremely intimate relations.

Why does the debate topic specifically mention families? This I find Interesting, that Most western cultures are opposed to organised marrage by families but here we have one step further, organised sexuality! and its not just by a persons family, but by their entire culture minus only one person. Them.

I shant keep on, else this become a one man rant and resemble more of a blog post than a debate.

I once again refer back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
MQGalabuzi

Pro

MQGalabuzi forfeited this round.
MrMagic

Con

I shall keep this very short and only raise one final point. The Anti Homosexuality Bill will not "help" prevent homosexuality among families in Uganda. At its most devastating, it may be a FACTOR in the prevention of homosexuality amongst Ugandans, but to attempt to equate this bill with the positivity of words such as "Help" or "Family" is immoral. The bill, as far as nearly all humanist organisations are concerned, will help nothing. It is, in part, anti-union, which is to say, in part, anti-family.

To conclude, attraction cannot be legislated.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by MrMagic 3 years ago
MrMagic
And that's the end of that chapter :)
Posted by MrMagic 3 years ago
MrMagic
I cannot see this one being extended for much further than it has already. I only really have one more point to raise against the 2 and a bit sentences that I have to oppose.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
These things happen, at least that debate was still relatively extensive. Honestly, most of the ones that others have forfeited with me didn't even get started. Hopefully this one doesn't end up that way.
Posted by MrMagic 3 years ago
MrMagic
In fact I believe that I forfeited the debate with you whiteflame.... on a very similar topic. My apologies for this.

However MGQalabuzi is currently, apparently, on-line...
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Heh, lots of those going around these days.
Posted by MrMagic 3 years ago
MrMagic
I did forfeit a round in my first (and only other) debate... karma...
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Needless to say, kbub. Minimum 14 years for engaging in consentual homosexual acts? A maximum of life imprisonment (the death penalty having only been removed due to massive international pressures)? It's more than a little confounding.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
I think it's actually the Ugandan government that is confused.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I'm confused. Are you saying that fewer people will be homosexual in Uganda following implementation of this law, or are you saying fewer people are likely to come out as homosexual afterward?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by vekoma123 3 years ago
vekoma123
MQGalabuziMrMagicTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Must I explain?
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
MQGalabuziMrMagicTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Needless to say, the multiple forfeits make this an easy win for Con, not to mention that Pro had an uphill battle trying to prove this in the first place. If you're going to start a debate with 30 minute time limits for answers, make sure you're on for them.
Vote Placed by Taylur 3 years ago
Taylur
MQGalabuziMrMagicTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not respond. Con gave convincing arguments with a restrictive time limit.