[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: TD's 1AR, Part I

On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Tim, not tim wrote:

>      One thing that really disturbs me is the *assumtion*, on the part
> of my detractors that homosexuality is inherently a genetic trait and
> not a behavior. We may not agree on whether it is behavior or genetics,
> but then again neither does science.  There have been no definitive
> studies that have translated into scientific fact with regard to a
> genetic link to homosexuality.  There are studies that exist that point
> to a genetic link...but the scientific fact on this issue comes down on
> the side of behavior.  In any case, just because one has desires whether
> they are genetic or behavioral, the choice to act on those desires is
> just that, a choice that results in an action, and actions are regulated
> by laws...beliefs are not. 

This has not been such a widespread assumption among "your detractors."
Bates made that claim, and I pointed out that there is some evidence for
it, but nothing conclusive.  I then pointed out that there is also some
evidence that heterosexuality is genetic, but this is also not conclusive
(in one of the parts of my response that you did not see fit to answer).
You cite a lack of evidence as "scientific fact [coming down on the side
of] behavior."  Please don't abuse science like that.  A lack of evidence
does not come down on any side at all.  It's an open question.  If you
regulate actions, but not beliefs, you can silence someone's freedom of
speech, because they still have the right to believe whatever they want,
right?

> members.  I am called a bigot, because I do not agree with the
> homosexual lifestyle.  The majority of congress,and your beloved
> president (Mr. Bill), do not support gay marriage. Initiaves in Colorado
> and Oregon have shown that large portions of America do not agree with
> this lifestyle either.  By the logic that has been used against me, most
> of congress, the president, and huge portions of society are bigots as
> well. 

Most Germans seem to have supported Hitler's rhetoric as well.  Yes, we
live in a bigoted society.  Does that make it right?

>      This issue is not the same as race or religion...my race does not
> cause me to act or behave in a way that society has deemed "deviant". 
> My race does not translate into a fixed set of actions.  The real
> question is whether or not society has the right to regulate the
> behaviors/actions of its citizens.  If you indict the government for
> discouraging homosexual behavior, then you must also indict it for
> discouraging murder, rape or any other socially unacceptable behavior. 

This distinguishes it from race, but not from religion.  You still have
not answered this.  If homosexuality is a choice (which it may or may not
be), why is it so different from a choice of religion?  Your last two
sentences are unsupported again.  Of course society can regulate behavior
of citizens, but you then make the assumption that homosexuality is akin
to murder or rape.  You still have not made any effort to provide
objective support for such an assertion.  Society does not have an
UNLIMITED right to regulate its citizens, does it?

>      This is really incomplete, and I am at work...so look for part II, and
> more specific answers to specific points made by others.

I saw Part II, but I'm still looking for those specific answers.

          --Alan

__________________
Alan Dove
N3IMU
ad52@columbia.edu
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page