Pang Ying:Hello, I’m Pang Ying. Welcome to the debate in Episode 35 of Think Like a Debater. Today’s motion is:When seeking equal rights for gay people, should we abandon the argument that sexual orientation is innate?Ms. Zhan argues no; I argue yes. The affirmative begins.

Zhan Qingyun:In our final debate I leave Ms. Pang the chance to shine, because my position is obvious: why abandon the argument?

First, is it true? The 1990s claim that one ‘gay gene’ determines orientation was disproved. But rejecting a single-gene theory does not show orientation is not innate.

Scholars dispute the degree, yet agree innate factors matter. ‘Innate’ is somewhat broad, but saying orientation is innate is not false. Can we agree?

Pang Ying:Later. Don’t corner me now.

Zhan Qingyun:Good. The claim is genuine, not pseudoscience invented for advocacy.

Second, is it useful? Social-science methods vary and findings are not uniform, but studies generally find supporters of equality more likely to describe orientation as innate, inherent, and unchangeable.

In other words,people who see same-sex orientation as innate generally support equal rights.Opponents more often attribute it to later choice or influence, such as harmful culture.

Some connect it with supposedly bad habits: early sex, seeking novelty, unhealthy lifestyles, or corrupt surroundings. Overall, the innate-orientation argument persuades.

Uganda’s parliament once passed an anti-gay bill. Its president resisted pressure while awaiting research on whether orientation was innate; he said he would reject the bill if it was, but sign if it was acquired.

Whatever we think of that reasoning, the innate argument clearly persuaded him and many others. Some support equality precisely because they believe orientation is innate.

It is both true and good—good because it helps win support for equal-rights policies. Why discard a useful, truthful argument?

If this argument accelerates policy, why not use it? The burden lies with the opposition.