The Instigator
Mikal
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TUF
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

The United States Should Adopt No Gay Zones

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 5 votes the winner is...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,578 times Debate No: 83427
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (50)
Votes (5)

 

Mikal

Pro

Resolved - The United States Should Adopt No Gay Zones

Terms

United States = United States of America

Adopt = Implement

No Gay Zones = Areas Where Gay People Are Not Allowed To Enter



Rules:

1. No forfeits
2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. No trolling
5. No semantics abuse
6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions
7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.

This is a Shared BOP

My adversary starts round 1 and waives his final round.

If you find a way to accept this without my permisson, you will suffer a automatic loss
TUF

Con

I thank my opponent for an interesting debate Topic.

To start off I have a couple of questions for my opponent to clarify for this debate, given that he asked that the contender start arguments in round 1.

If such zones were to exist, we would have to consider the many different factors that go into one making one of these zones work. First of all, is a zone a small area the size as a military base, is it a whole county, or is it something the size of an entire state? Secondly how would one of these zone’s be moderated? Would gay individual’s already in the area be grandfathered, or would they be kicked out soon after the implementation? What type of punishments would be a result of a gay individual being caught in an anti-gay zone? Hopefully my opponent will answers these questions in the next round, as this will open up some different avenues of debate.

Let’s jump right into the debate!

Argument 1: Anti-Gay Zones are unrealistic, and non-beneficial

Let’s for a moment avoid the moral debate, and assume a United States where anti “blank” zones were something plausible to implement in the United States, for any reason. According to several Polls from Wall Street Journal, CNN, and the human right campaign, about 59-63% of Americans support Gay marriage. (1) Further statistics in the source show demographics for Conservative, and Christian individuals who also support these rights. While statistics, can often be flawed, the fact that several polls draw in very close to this 60% average, shows that a general majority of U.S. citizens are in support of marriage equality. Now focusing in on the 40% who do not support Marriage equality, we do find many problems in finding specific statistics on beliefs. Most simply follow the belief (either through religious influence, or their own personal preference) that Gay Marriage is simply immoral. This does not however mean most of these individuals do not want to be anywhere around other Gay individuals. Again without flooding this debate with a bunch of probably biased polling statics on this minority, I would say it’s safe to make the claim that a majority of this (minority) group who dis-believe in Gay Marriage, don’t personally despise dealing with them (Gay people) in person. The ones who totally despise being around Gay’s so much that they would want to be in a separate society are probably so small, that it would be almost incredibly difficult to justify creating an entire “zone” for them.

Let’s get into this meat of this point a little more clearly.

Sub A: The infeasibility of “ If not A, why not B?” Logic

While it could be argued that anti-(insert specific here) zone’s already exist through recognizing individual state sovereignty’s , one might argue that if we are going to represent the interest of a small group of individuals (for the sake of hypotheticals, lets say “crazy, red-neck, bible pusher’s and shorten the term to CRBP’s), it will beg the question of “why not support the other Anti-‘blank’ Zones?”.

We get into the issue of Anti-Gun Zones for individuals who are pro-gun control or Anti-abortion zones for individuals who happen to be pro-life. How necessary or important is it to push out legislation to create such territories? Government officials then also have to worry about the many multiple things that would go into making such zones work. IE finances, law enforcement, maintainability, etc. My opponent’s clarification on the questions I have asked him in the beginning of this debate might shed some light on this subject and allow us to debate more specifics. This argument is not saying inherently that people will demand these other zone’s (which would be delving into the slippery slope fallacy), but rather saying that law makers would have to heavily consider the fairness in creating a law like this.

In Conclusion, I will not be focusing to heavily on building a Con case in this debate. 1. Because of the 5,000 character limit, and 2. My opponent being the instigator of the debate, more likely has an idea of how the claim in the resolution will be supported. I have sneaking suspicions on the route he will go on this debate (or at least the route he won’t go in terms of arguing), and thus find it redundant to delve into morals and ethics unless my opponent brings them up in his first round of debate. So for now I am going to stick with the “realism” argument and focus mostly on negating in this debate. I find it non-realistic, non-beneficial, and unnecessary for Anti-Gay zones to be implemented based on the lobbying support of a very minor group of people who are likely mostly made up of “CRBP’s”. My solution for these individuals seeking anti-gay zones, would be to seek comfort in the ones we have tailored specifically for them, that I commonly refer to as “The psychiatric ward”. Good luck Mikal, I look forward to an interesting debate.

Sources:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Pro

I would like to thank TUF for accepting this. He is a great friend of mine and I think this will be a very unique and interesting debate.

Jumping right into this


(1) The Status Quo

Whether people want to admit it or not, the affirmation in this resolution supports the status quo. The reason I ran this as a shared BOP is due to that reason. Without the Burden being shared, I would be debating a truism which would serve no practical purpose.


(1A) Simple Logic and Privacy Laws


To put this simply, everyone who owns property can do with that property what they please [1]. Private property is a fundamental concept in the United States of America, and one that everyone must respect. This quote by Justice Sanders Fundamentally captures the essence of the laws in question

“Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right.”[2]

When you own a piece of property, you have the full ability to do with that property what you want under the Fifth Amendment of the United States [3]. Legally you can deny someone entry in to your home, and the only way that right can be infringed on is with due cause. Meaning you can discriminate and scan who enters your home, and you have under full authority of the law the right to pick who enters your home because it is your property.

In that sense no gay zones already exist, especially in the context of religious households, and other people that do not support gay marriage. As much as we hate to admit it, if someone does not want someone to enter their home for whatever reason they can come up with, outside of due process and just cause, they can deny them the right to enter. Again in that sense, the resolution is already affirmed, and it's just about getting the United States to Acknowledge it.

(a) This does not imply a punishment for breaking the law, granted you could tie in a punishment in with it if need be. However that is not what this debate is about, but its quite plausible to go that route. It would simply have the same consequences as trespassing on private property.
(b) This resolution simply implies having the USA acknowledge it and recognize it, along with adopting zones that gay people can not enter. I am simply affirming that the United States should extend private property laws, to the extent that it is relative to specifically gays

(2) Scaling the Argument

Since we know that private property laws are already a thing, and that people can deny people entrance into their home. There are already "no gay zones" in that sense. What I would also propose is that this line of logic is extended equally to religious institutions for obvious reasons.

There are still quite a few religious sects that oppose same sect marriage. Baptists, Pentecostals, etc all prohibit it and consider same sex marriage a sin. If we apply this concept to churches it would be a net benefit. You are stopping situations that could lead to negative impacts, and also respecting someones right to religion.

Discrimination is not a crime, and someone can believe what they want to believe for whatever reason they want to believe. If a religious person wants to worship in church in a environment they are comfortable with, they should be able to. We have freedom of religion in the United States, as a fundamental core belief. Much less the church itself would scale into the private property argument, and all religious institutions that accepted it would become "no gay zones". That is not saying people can do what they want for religious reasons, but that they can worship how they want, in a environment that they are comfortable with, as long as their beliefs does not violate the harm principle and effect people directly.

(C) Congregating

Wealth segregation is a thing in the United States. Meaning rich people surround themselves with rich people, and often rich people attend certain schools (5). The same concept applies to certain communities and races in the United States. Often white people stay away and don't live in minority areas. This is a truism

Anti gay people will congregate in to certain areas to share beliefs with people similar to theirs. Establishing this plan helps us out greatly. It would to some degree make a bunch of racist people all go to certain areas. This keeps them all in one area away from civilized society.




[1] http://www.econlib.org...
[2] “Fifth Amendment” treatise by Washington State Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders (12/10/97),
[3] https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[4] http://www.pewresearch.org...
TUF

Con

Thanks Mikal, for the quick response. As no response was made to my Round 1 arguments, I will focus on my opponents case.

Logic and Privacy Laws

At face values, I do not reject most of the point my opponent is making here. In fact I said the very same thing in my first round (rather shortened) when I said "It could be argued that anti-(insert specific here) zone’s already exist through recognizing individual state sovereignty’s".

The problem I have with Mikal's point here is the lack of a burden or convincing impact, and I think this point works better for my case then it suits his. It is not illegal to kick Gay people off of private property, nor for you to practice your own beliefs in the sanctity of your own home. Nor should it be. By Pro stating the resolution is already affirmed, he is basically putting himself in a position where there is no reason to support a pro world. Why vote to affirm a resolution, if their isn't a problem to begin with? The United States already acknowledges property rights. My only real issue is the last line in my opponents argument here that states: I am simply affirming that the United States should extend private property laws, to the extent that it is relative to specifically gays.

Why? A trespasser is a trespasser. If they are not welcome on your property, they are not welcome. Why does it matter if they are Gay so much that it has to be written in law specifically? It works against the United States interest to Publicly discriminate a group of people if there is no apparent reason to do so. That would almost be like clarifying Islamic Radicalists should not be allowed to enter people's homes. The logic isn't there, and it's a completely unnecessary way to write the law when it already emcompasses any intruders.

Further this entire point lends no credence to why specific zones need to be created to begin with. The Pro actually never clarifies what a zone entails despite my questions in the beginning of the debate, and thus far has only mentioned one's own home or private property, which as we've already discussed, is an already recognized "Anti-Gay zone".

Scaling the Argument

This point seems to follow mostly the same logic that the first point does, and to me the burden is still unclear. We've established that private property owners should have their rights. Religious entities like various religions and churches fall under this category as well. The resolution is phrased in a way that one would assume a Pro world is supporting government created zones however, and here my opponent is just exampling private organizations and properties. Many businesses have the right to refuse service, though anti-discrimination laws prevent businesses from discriminating against, race, gender, and orientation in a money-making setting.

The Privately owned homes, and churches my opponent mentions do not fall under this category.

The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law. (1)

Congregating

This was the argument I was expecting to hear. The basic premise is that people tend to group themselves into areas where beliefs are similar. While this is a “truism” in many cases as my opponent points out, it is not a truism in every case. Having a large number of differing beliefs surrounding an individual, makes them less likely to stay a single mindset. So rounding the racist up and putting them in their own society (or zone) as Pro suggests, is likely not going to solve any problems with discrimination (which is largely unclear whether this is important to Pro based on a contradicting statement in the previous argument he made).

Congregation can occur without a government implemented Zone, thus I feel this point is ineffective to affirming the resolution.

In conclusion, I feel what justifies a No-Gay zone over any other “anti-blank zone” is very minor, and the reasoning behind logic in implementing is even more lacking. Pro’s Third argument seems to hint that “Anti-Blank zone” creation extends beyond just the Gay debate. I maintain that it is not in America’s best interests to adopts specific zones, or change wording in law to cater to all the specific groups of people who don’t like a certain ruling, or group of people. Back to you Mikal.

Sources:

1. https://www.legalzoom.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Pro

Rebuttal 1 ) Not beneficial

To sum this point up rather quickly Con commits an ad populum or what is otherwise known as an appeal to majority. Which can be constructed under a utilitarian line of logic, it's saying because a "great" majority of people believe in something and if the vast majority of people believe in something, it's better to benefit the masses than focus on the minority. Even In pros own studies a vast amount of people opposed same sex marriage. I'm not going to go into a source battle, but from the sources I posted last round and his own sources, we can see that nearly 40-50% of Christians are not cool with it. Con proposes that this number would marginally be smaller because not everyone would not want to be around gay people, but I digress. Most Christian people consider gay marriage a sin, and those that are committing the act to be sinners. In the bible ts calls you away from sin and being around sin specifically unless you are trying to witness to someone. We can logically assume that quite a few Christians do not like to be around gay people, or they would not view them as sinners.

I would also like to quantify this argument. Roughly 70% - 83% of Americans Consider themselves Christians[1][2]. There are also roughly 320 million people in the US [3] . I would like to note that pros own sources contradict each other via logic. In one sentence he proposes that nearly 65% of the american population supports gay marriage. Then in the next sentence says only 40% of Christians oppose it. 60% of 320 million is 192 million (via his first argument). Seeing as he himself says that typically only bible thumping red neck Christians oppose it, we can assume that a vast majority of those who oppose it are as he says. Let's take the median route and assume that 76% of the nation are Christians. That is roughly 232 million. Then only 40% of that number do not support gay marriage. That breaks down to roughly 138 million who do support it. He has accidentally contradicted himself. In one source he is saying that roughly 192 million people support and then in the next source he is basically saying that 138 Million people support it. The margin of error via his own stats is around 21%. Not only that but no matter how you look at it, you either have 110 Million people who oppose same sex marriage(via first source) or 200 Million people who oppose it (via the second source). Let's just assume both surveys are flawed and again take the median as a indicator (150 million). You still have nearly 40% of the people in the US that oppose same sex marriage (probably for religious reasons). To invoke a valid utilitarian argument, the scale has to be proper. Is it valid to sacrifice one life to save thousands. Almost any person would say yes. This argument whoever is much closer. You have a split percentage of people who both oppose gay marriage and support it.

I'm simply asking that we honor 40% of peoples right to freedom of religion.

Rebuttal Sub A ) Not beneficial

I went over most of this, but they would operate the same as privacy laws, and private property laws in the US and also carry the same consequences. It's just allowing the government to actually acknowledge and allow people freedom of religion while giving them the right to discriminate without causing harm to others in order to follow their religious interests.



Reforming Contention 1 - Private Property Laws )

Pro concedes this line of logic is already a truism and that anti gay zones are already actively in place without being acknowledged. I am not just advocating for a truism, but advocating that the government officially acknowledges and recognizes these zones.


Reforming Contention - Scaling )

Just a note anti-discrimination laws do not prevent businesses from not offering a service to someone if they are gay, nor does the civil rights act. Anti discrimination laws prevent employers from discriminating against employees if they are gay (including hiring). There is a dichotomy between refusing service or entry and not treating employees equal. Also the civil right acts does not cover gay people, they fall outside of it which has caused a hell fire of recent debate actually[4] . Sexal orientation does not fall under the clause of gender, race, and religion.

That was also just a reference point, not an argument. My proposal is that churches and homes being acknowledged and accepted as anti gay zones, in areas where religious people wish to make them so



Reforming Contention 3 - Congregation )

Con suggests that "rounding" racist and discrminatiory people in one zone won't solve anything. I disagree entirely. You won't have to round them up because they will flock to each other, and then when you have them in one area, that area can be zoned for screenings, jobs, etc. It keeps hostile people all in one spot



[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://www.census.gov...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
TUF

Con

Anti-Gay zones are unrealistic and non-beneficial

Pro summarizes my point here to be ad populum. This is a complete mis-reading of my point. My point is that the entire resolution is looking at a minority, inside of a minority (Not just Christians who do not support Gay Marriage, but the radical ones who are so disturbed by them that they would move to an entirely different territory in order to be away from them). Am I saying that there opinion doesn"t matter? Yes, but not because of the fact that they are a minority, but rather because they are irrational if they want to be separated from a group of people who follow personal interests they do not agree with but do not have to adversely affect them. We don't create zone's for every group who simply despises another group of people, unless you count a mental hospital. But more importantly this point is about how making legislation to support a small group doesn"t make sense, which also feeds into my sub A about how doing this would open the doors for creating "Anti-Everything" zones.

Con next says that 50% of Christians "are not cool" with being around gays. On what basis does he stand to justify this point? Believing something is a sin doesn't mean they all want to remove themselves from people who sin. Unfortunately that would be impossible. Especially when there is so much in the world that Christianity views to be sinful. My opponent is specifying these people don't want to be around sinners, but is only talking about those who are Gay. What about the people who have tattoos, are alcohol drinkers, aren't monogomous, have had underage sex, etc? While these "sins" vary from religion to religion, my opponent is saying that Christians have lived around these types of sinners for years just fine, but only now need to move to their own zone? Is homosexuality so much worse than all these other sins that people commit daily? Just because Christian's don't like something, doesn't mean they all can't live in a world that legalizes it. My opponents critiques on my stat's are completely innacurate. I cited a wikipedia source showing several polls, and deduced that to be a good example of the majority of Christian's stance on Gay Marriage. It in no way is an accurate source of the beliefs of the entire population, and I was vocal about that during my round. There is actually very little reliable info that I could actually find on population source data for mass political data on people's stance on Gay rights, at least that I could actively find in the first few pages of my google search. My opponents ravings that this is a utilitarianistic is invalid. My argument is on realism, and I think I have proven that it is not realistic or feasible to focus a government endorsed zone when private ones already exist, especially for a group of people who are so small.

Sub A: Non beneficial

My opponent responds to this point by saying people should be able to practice freedom of religion. They can. He follows this up by saying that they should be allowed to discriminate without causing harm to others.

1. Having a religious view that doesn't support an ideal is not active discrimination. I advise my opponent look up what discrimination actually is, if he mis-understands this.
2. Why would the U.S. have any interest in giving people the "Right to discriminate"? There is no Impact here. It's almost as If I were to say the government should support people's need to throw rocks at others by giving them their own unique zone.

Private Property Laws

My opponent suggests that the goverments needs to put out something official stating that these places are anti gay zones. Why? Private Property laws are as my opponents stated, very straight-forward. Re-writing them to pick on a specific group of people makes no sense, when they broadly already apply to the group in question, and many, many more.

Scaling

Referring back to my source from last round, Anti-discrimination laws are slightly borader than jsut emplyoment. "You can refuse to serve someone even if they"re in a protected group, but the refusal can"t be arbitrary and you can"t apply it to just one group of people."

My proposal is that churches and homes being acknowledged and accepted as anti gay zones, in areas where religious people wish to make them

This is a repeat of my opponent's previous point, which I have already hit.

Congregation

My opponent is suggesting that hostile, crazy people deserve to be accepted in normal society, given the same freedoms as everyone else, and catered to specifically. Turns out we have plenty of places like this, called prisons. My opponents problems are solved, these zones already exist!

The only argument my opponent has is that the United States needs to clarify laws to discrimate specific a group(s) of people. I maintain that this is completely unnecessary and works against the United States Interest. The issue is simply not worth the time of Government officials to focus on over much more important problems.
Debate Round No. 3
Mikal

Pro

I have to post this before work, and I'm left with the alternative of either (a) playing dungeons and dragons and building a new character or (b) doing this

I defer to (a)

Vote TUF, I'm to lazy to write this and I really need to learn to stop debating because I don't have time anymore lol
TUF

Con

Thanks for a fun debate Mikal. Jump on google hangouts and play some mafia with us!
Debate Round No. 4
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
lol, those reported votes are hilarious. I got to remember to cast a troll vote whenever I see a concession debate for now on.
Posted by RainbowDash52 1 year ago
RainbowDash52
lol, those reported votes are hilarious. I got to remember to cast a troll vote whenever I see a concession debate for now on.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Benshapiro// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Fuckit

[*Reason for removal*] Pro clearly conceded the debate. Also, let's be clear, profanity like this is really unnecessary in RFDs and shouldn't be appearing here.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: thett3// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). homosexuality is an abomination

[*Reason for non-removal*] Votes on debates with a clear concession are not moderated unless they allocate points to the wrong side.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: YYW// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). Mothafuckas dance with singing chocolate cake on the dark side of the moon. (I dare whiteflame to remove this vote... because I just know he's going too... and when he does I'm going to just have a ball with it.)

[*Reason for non-removal*] Votes on debates with a clear concession are not moderated unless they allocate points to the wrong side. Could do without the extension, YYW.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Smithereens// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments). I feel that TUF had a more genuine profile picture.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Votes on debates with a clear concession are not moderated unless they allocate points to the wrong side.
************************************************************************
Posted by Mikal 1 year ago
Mikal
There is a source missing but its gucci
Posted by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
I am assuming it was meant to go somewhere in the "Sealing the argument" area.
Posted by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
Quick Question mikal. On your 4th source in that last argument you put up, I think you mislabeled it as (5) next to your argument. There are only 4 sources though so I was kind of confused. Also the pew research source didn't seem to have anything to do with what you preceded your source with, so I was wondering if the 4th source was meant to go elsewhere? Or if you potentially forgot a source? If you could clarify that would be great.

Here is the source in question:
http://www.pewresearch.org...
Posted by TUF 1 year ago
TUF
Lol damn I thought you had some clever trick ul your sleeve argumentally.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
MikalTUFTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
MikalTUFTied
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: Concession
Vote Placed by Smithereens 1 year ago
Smithereens
MikalTUFTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel that TUF had a more genuine profile picture.
Vote Placed by YYW 1 year ago
YYW
MikalTUFTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Mothafuckas dance with singing chocolate cake on the dark side of the moon. (I dare whiteflame to remove this vote... because I just know he's going too... and when he does I'm going to just have a ball with it.)
Vote Placed by thett3 1 year ago
thett3
MikalTUFTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: homosexuality is an abomination