Should freedom of sexual orientation be considered a human right?

Asked by: MysticEgg
  • I do think so.

    I believe that there is no reason* against freedom of sexual orientation. I would also like to stress that this is not about gay marriage - this is as a human right. I would ask the opposition to provide non-religious, morally inclusive views about the negative. I will await your response!

  • Yes it should.

    It's one thing being against gay marriage but another wishing to prevent people from loving whoever they want. I mean, why? Forcing people to either pretend they are straight which will cause great misery or to love in secret which will cause paranoia and if caught...
    Why stop other people simply from being gay? It does not affect another person at all. Fine gay marriage is another thing (I support it) if you are against it that's another thing but just stopping people from being open about their sexuality? Really?
    Why does it affect you??

  • Duh of course!

    Obviously sexuality is one of the main components of being a living being. Humans have the choice in how to express their sexuality. Freedom of expression is everyone's right no matter what it is they are doing, as long as they are not hurting anyone. When will we stop getting stressed out about people who aren't hurting anyone?

  • Yes, being emotionally fulfilled is a human right!

    People that are in loving hertrosexual relationships are happy and get to have weddings where people celebrate their sweet future together. So, by that logic standing in support romantic relationships, why won't some people support the love couples have for each other, even if they were the same sex? Who are we to judge? I have seen plenty of instances where gay and or lesbian couples have healthier relationships than straight people. So everybody calm down accept it.

  • UDHR already covers this.

    Articles 2, 6, 7 and 16 are relevant to the question, in my opinion. See the words "or other status" in Article 2.

    Of course, this doesn't mean that all countries recognize S.O. As a human right. Not even all countries recognize the UDHR. Even USA hasn't ratified its two covenants.

    My answer is Yes.

  • Yes, of course

    Every human should have the right to have sex with or love anyone that they want to (as long as they are a consenting adult). To deny someone "feelings" is inhumane. Religion is not a good argument to deny someone this right either as religious beliefs are not the same for everyone so not everyone plays by the same "rules" as other religions. In the US, we have freedom of religion so using religion to deny someone else's rights is unconstitutional in my eyes. As long as your lover is of legal age and consenting, its NONE OF ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS.

  • Heterosexuality is not the only sexual orientation found in nature

    Although most people believe that homosexuality is only found in humans, it was actually observed in more than a thousand species of animals. That is proof that sexuality is not a choice (because if it were, less intelligent beings would act on their instincts and try to procreate). Hence, humans should have the right to express themselves as they feel appropriate. Sexuality is not more of a choice fore someone as is their height, eye color, or race. Could you imagine being asked "Should freedom of RACE be considered a human right?" That is preposterous.

  • It is a human right

    People shouldn't be discriminated for their sexual orientation. It is their choice to be gay or not, and it's just the way they are. Some Christian people will argue that being gay is a sin, but consider this: all people are made in god's image, therefore making gays average people just like you.

  • Yes, it should.

    There are many that are against gay marriage, but preventing of love should not be allowed. Love is love, no matter who it is with. And prohibiting love is not something that should ever be allowed, ever. People should always get to chose who they are with, no one else can decide that for them. If it isn't your love and your life, you have no right to decide anything about it. Stopping someone from being open about how they feel about the opposite sex is not neccessary, and it doesn't concern you one bit. People have the freedom of speech, and they chould be able announce that they are bisxual without any dicrimination. Everyone is free as long as you don't infringe on another's freedom, and everyone has the freedom to be of any sexual orientation.

  • Yes it should

    This would probably eliminate a lot of bullying and ridicule that people get from "coming out of the closet" It's sad to think that people should have to be afraid to say their sexual orientation for no other reason than homophobic people who have no business with commenting on another persons sexuality, why do other people care anyway? How does it affecting anyone else but that person?

    Posted by: kh24
  • Where does it end?

    Sexual orientation- n.
    The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes, especially a direction seen to be dictated by physiologic rather than sociologic forces. Replaces sexual preference in most contemporary uses.

    Sexual Orientation
    A person’s potential for responding with sexual arousal to persons of the opposite sex (i.E., heterosexual orientation), same sex (i.E., homosexual orientation), or both (i.E., bisexual orientation)

    These are just 2 definitions taken straight from a medical dictionary. Based on these 2 definitions, one could argue that orientation doesn't stop at homosexuality. As a matter of fact, there is already a push by many psychologists to include those whom we call "sexual predators/offenders" under this definition. They state that it is not a choice for these people just as it isn't a choice for those who "struggle" with homosexuality. That these people are naturally wired to be attracted to those who are "under age." Where do we draw the line. You can't claim freedom for one and not the other when the other clearly falls within the same definition. Am I comparing one to the other? Absolutely not! What I am trying to show is that when we, as a people, demand freedom for a group of people because "they can't help who they are," we are opening pandoras box for many others to cry the same thing.

  • I don't think it's orientation.

    I've seen multiple pieces of evidence that support the term sexual orientation, but I've also seen evidence that it's sexual preference as well. If the evidence concludes that it's sexual preference and not sexual orientation than you can't really have a right to sexual orientation, so to answer the question provided no. However even if the evidence shows that it's sexual preference people still have the right to love and be loved by whomever they wish.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.