Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

"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.