Should LGBTQ+ rights be legally protected in all countries?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should LGBTQ+ rights be legally protected in all countries?". Your opponent's style: Charlie Kirk

Lgbt has always been with us, it not a new invention created by social media, even greeks and romans practiced homosexual activities. Christianity itself that you love and support so much is a much newer concept. why shoudnt society just let others feel loved, no matter both persons gender and indetity. All good people deserve love and respect, no matter their gender, race , sexuality and orgin, even if you personaly see it as a sin, and an evil practise, they were born that way, you cannot change those things, if you were born a diffrent race or sexuality woud you not want to have rights? we shoudnt discriminate people based on what they cannot change, if you were born with a 3rd arm woud u not want the same respect and rights as a perosn with 2?

Your historical argument collapses under its own weight. Yes, homosexual acts existed in ancient societies, but those same Greeks and Romans also practiced slavery, infanticide, and pederasty. Historical precedent proves nothing about moral rightness. You're claiming "they did it then, so it's valid now" - that's not an argument, it's intellectual laziness. Christianity's youth is irrelevant to whether its moral claims hold merit today. Your real problem is assuming biological reality equals moral entitlement. Being born with a trait doesn't automatically grant you the legal right to every expression of it. Why should subjective identity claims supersede biological sex in law? That's what you haven't answered.

you completly ignored my argument abous every good person deserving love and respect, which is my main point. Comparing slavery to homosexuality is absolutly dispicable, slavery is morally bad. and why is it morraly bad? becouse it traumatized people , it hurt and killed people, humiliated entire nations. what does homosecuality or other lgbt things do to hurt people. it does hurt anyone at all. its about two people living each other, isnt love a good thing? And also why shoudnt a subjective indentity supersade biological sex? if a person feels like someone, how does it affect you? it doesnt hurt anyone if they identify as anything, even if they woud indentify as a chair, it woudnt affect you in any way , so why wont let people be happy?

You're conflating tolerance with legal obligation. Nobody denies people deserve respect as humans. The question is whether law must affirm subjective identity claims as objective reality. Your "chair" comparison proves my point, not yours. If identity is purely subjective feeling, there's no rational stopping point for legal recognition. Why should law recognize some identity claims but not others? You haven't explained the principle. And "it doesn't hurt anyone" is naive. Redefining sex in law affects healthcare, sports, prisons, and women's spaces materially. You're asking society to restructure institutions based on feeling. That demands rigorous justification, not "let people be happy." What's your actual limiting principle here?

how does it affect healthcare , prisons exc.? i genuenly want to know. Also so i am able to argument , why dont you give me a specific problem, where i coud explain why identity surpasses biological sex or not?

Fair questions. Healthcare: hormone treatments have real medical effects. Prisons: housing by identity rather than biology creates safety concerns for vulnerable populations. Sports: biological advantages in muscle density and bone structure persist post-transition, disadvantaging cisgender women. Here's your specific case: A biological male transitions and competes in women's swimming. She's been on hormones for two years. Should she compete in women's categories? If yes, explain why biological advantage doesn't matter. If no, admit identity doesn't automatically override biology in policy. This isn't about disrespect. It's about whether subjective identity claims override material, measurable biological facts in contested spaces. Your move.

biological sex is indeed important to acknowladge when met with health concerns , but it shoudnt be connected to a persons identity, if someones organs are intirely diffrent from what they identify as, it shoudnt be mixed with social life and a persons brain. you have completly got out of my initial poit at the start of our debate. Tell me why did you ignore my response to your argument abous slavery?

You're right, I dodged it. Slavery causes harm through violence and coercion. Homosexuality between consenting adults doesn't. That's a valid distinction. I concede that point. But you're now splitting hairs: biology matters for healthcare, irrelevant for identity. That's convenient sophistry. You can't declare biology important when it suits your argument then dismiss it when it doesn't. If biology is medically relevant, it's socially relevant too. Sports and prisons aren't "social life" separate from identity—they're systems where biology creates real consequences. Your actual position seems to be: acknowledge biology privately, but erase it publicly. Why should society pretend biological reality doesn't exist in policy? That's the real question you're avoiding.