Gay Marriage/Rights

My opponent says: "I do know that homosexuals are in our society, hence our debate. You have not given a reason for me that they deserve any right they actually deserve. Personally, it's very ludicrous that anyone has a magically 'deserved' right in the first place." Then what have heterosexual couples done to deserve the right to marry? I don't see them performing any special tasks to earn the right to marry. No one deserves the right to marry if it has to be earned. "But as you point out, if discrimination and prejudice continues, we do not have to give them the right to publicly announce to get themselves publicly discriminated. It's not only good for the vast majority, but in an ironic sense, good for also the inevitably homosexual" So your suggesting we silence all homosexuals by taking away their first amendment right (the right to free speech), so that heterosexuals won't become offended? That's ridiculous. Homosexuals already have limited rights, and you think we should go ahead and take away a birthright(which, by the way, is something you don't have to earn)? You can't deprive someone the right to marry who they love because "it disgusts you". The only reason "discrimination and prejudice" exists, is because of people like you who refuse to accept people for who they are and try to enforce their will on the minority by trying to make them live a lie, which is what you suggested we do. My opponent says: "Allow me to explain. It is a simple dilemma whether to consider homosexuality a psychological/genetic disease. If one could prevent or cure one from such a state, would you consider it a disease? It is of course, already abnormal. There are two ways to consider. 1. We deprive them of their choice, and prevent/cure all of them. It would cleanse our society of homosexuals, and we do not have to further worry about homosexuals. 2. We give them their choice. But it would most likely not be for the best of our own good. Because obviously, it wouldn't make the vast majority feel good. Which does not good to the most, and in a utilitarian sense, that's very bad." Again, you can't tell someone else how to live their lives. As I said before, we had the same dilemma with the Civil Rights Movement. The whites were the vast majority in that situation and it made the whites feel good to know that the blacks, whom they considered beneath them, did not have the same rights as they did. That obviously made the vast majority feel good, but we look back on it today and most consider segregation based on race to be wrong. The same thing will happen when homosexuals get the right to marry. Most look back on it and think "Yeah, that was the right thing to do." I'm sorry but I couldn't help but notice that, dealing with the two points you gave above, 2. (waiting years upon years for a "cure" and then forcing homosexuals to accept the cure, which is unconstitutional) seems alot more easier and simpler than 1. (just simply giving them their rights). But that's just me. "I don't care what you believe. That's not the point either. And next is a link. Genetics does not always override how one becomes. One is also influenced by its surroundings to form who one is. A person is actually the output of its template and in addition, its past." I didn't ask if you cared what I believe, I simply stated my opinion in one sentence and then presented you with facts. I can post links too. http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com... http://weblogs.nrc.nl... http://pleion.blogspot.com... http://www.apa.org... http://www.mentalhelp.net... My opponent says: "That helps support the fact that we should prevent more people/children from turning to homosexuality." No... It helps my argument not yours. You completely avoided my argument. As I said, if it were a choice they could have just become heterosexual and ended it all. People kill themselves over being homosexual. People cry their eyes out over being homosexual. That doesn't really sound like a choice to me. Ask any homosexual and they will tell you. My opponent says: "No, people always have a choice. But not always is the case when you can go back on your choice. Like I said, and with the reference above round, homosexuality is mostly the result of the environment. If you change the environment, then you can also change the person, without choice." You change the environment and you change the person? Funny how the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals is very consistent world-wide, despite the fact that there are different environments everywhere. That's like saying if someone is right-handed and you take them to an environment where people are left-handed, they'll become left-handed. "As referenced above, one of the key pivot in the typical process of how one turns to homosexuality are: lack of a father, inability to assimilate a masculine identity, acquiring a feminine identity..." You obviously don't know any homosexuals personally. Lack of a father? Really? That's a ridiculous argument. I have a great dad and my brother is gay. Saying that homosexuality follows having a horrible or no father, is a ridiculous argument. Not all homosexual men are feminine like society would have us believe. In fact, one of the most masculine people I know is a homosexual. He plays football for my high school and is anything but feminine. "But the one key thing is that the very process is very pivotal in the stages where a toddler is in elementary school. It would prevent homosexuals if one were to segregate the males and females in different classes on elementary schools. In that sense, it would help toddlers develop their own 'correct' gender-identity, and furthermore help develop a more 'craving' for the opposite sex." That would do nothing but feed the fire. If homosexuality is indeed genetic, then this would do nothing more than stimulate an excitement around the same sex. My opponent says: "No. People always have a choice, only that some choices come with cold hard consequences. But, people always have had the choice to become what they want. What mistake or misconception you maybe making is that they made a choice, but cannot easily go back on that choice. Usually, the case is that people did not choose themselves, but let their environment choose for themselves. It usually ends up bad." So your saying people choose to be male or female? Left-handed or Right-handed? Smart or dumb? Did you choose to be straight? I know I didn't because I was born that way. You don't choose who you are, God or nature, whatever you believe, made you that way. My opponent says: "While what you say is pointless to this topic at hand, you did make a point that majority of the religions do believe that homosexuality is not desirable. What I said was not how I want you to be a 'Confucianism'. I'm not even Confucianist. What I said was how Confucians believe how a well-ordered society leads to a better future. And how I connected it to a utilitarian view, that homosexuality is undesirable, and makes people feel uncomfortable. It would not only be irrational to allow them SSM, but it would rather be more logical to prevent and rid of homosexuals." I did not say you were a Confucianist. I simply said, that no one has any right to force someone to obey the laws of their religion. Actually if you put all of the numbers together, around 30%-40% of heterosexuals are fine with homosexuals. Just because your a heterosexual doesn't mean you automatically hate homosexuals. So again, put all the numbers together and the number of people who are "homophobic" or strongly disagree with homosexuals, is barely the majority.