Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Sexual orientation is predetermined at birth.
It's a fact that sexual orientation is established at birth. How can we ascertain this? It's quite straightforward to identify a newborn's sex based on their genitalia. Male infants have a penis, while female infants have a vagina. It's as simple as that.

I do not believe you met God, Nor went to a gay bar with Him, Nor were able to dumbfound Him. When starting a debate with lies, You have automatically discredited yourself. That being said, As you are using the Bible as your text, I will too. First, Man chose to introduce sin into the world, Which is the root cause of all of the "questions" you submitted to God (Genesis 3). As it is written: "There is no one righteous, Not even one; (Romans 3:10)". As no one is righteous, There are no "innocent" people, All are born selfish, And unrighteous. "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, And that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time (Genesis 6:5)". It was man that chose to be wicked, And their thoughts were evil "ALL THE TIME, " not God's. So, Why did God destroy everything in the flood, I guess it is probably the same reason I throw out rotten fruit. I worry that when I introduce new fruit to my fruit bowl, It will spoil because the original fruit in there was rotten. I just need to throw it out, Wash the bowl, And put in a new fresh crop. If I do not fully clean the bowl of all filth, All new fruit will be contaminated, And be forever cast out, You get the analogy. Does God want to kill gays? I think the preference from a biblical standpoint was that He did not per say want to kill gays, But instead wanted people not to practice homosexuality. At the time marriages were arranged, And had little to do with love. As such, Any homosexual behavior would be outside of the marriage agreement or vow, And therefore wrong. It would be very similar to how adultery was looked upon, And this answer covers both. Taking scripture in context, And referencing itself, We see that "His bloodguiltiness is upon him, " or in other words, He knew what he was doing, And chose to otherwise. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 indicates that if there is a rebellious son who does not obey their parents, They will bring him to the elders of the city. First, A parent, Being the judge, Will only bring someone that is pure evil before the elders to be judged, And possibly put to death. Now this is merciful, It does not have the elders judging him, But those who have the most vested interest in keeping him alive, Followed by the judgement by the elders as a check and balance. If the child were abused, As you argue, The elders would hear that, And could then make a decision. I am jealous for my children when they choose what is wrong. I want them to choose the right, And am jealous when they do not, Much like God does. Also, If you believe that one's eternal destiny is based on their acceptance God, You would not want those who profess otherwise to ruin the salvation of others. "One bad apple" argument. I do not believe the bible says anywhere that rape and slavery are a good thing. It does have rules surrounding them, But it is not endorsed, Unless you show me otherwise, I stick to my statement. I do not understand where you get the "no free will whatsoever" statement you add. Even a strict Calvinist would tell you that God's foreknowledge in no way takes away from your free will. As God is timeless, He knows everything, But it does not mean He chose that. An example is that I know my children well enough that I know they are going to eat the sweetened cereal over the wheat bran, But it does not mean I chose this for them. Man chose evil not God. Man and Satan wanted to be God, Though they were not, And thus lies their sin. Giving free will allows one to choose this good or evil. Would you prefer God choose to remove your free will and force you to follow God, Or would you like to choose free will? Where does it state that God loves to see the suffering of children? Yes suffering happens, But it is due to our fallen state, Not God delighting in it. Can you provide lies a list of what you see as lies in the Bible? Why do you ask God why you should believe in Him if you spoke with him at the beginning of your debate? Obviously if you think you saw Him, You would not question His existence. Do you really want a world without emotions? How could you know happiness if you did not know sorrow? Language changes. The commandment in modern vernacular is "do not murder" or similar, Only the KJV, Translated in the 1600s, Says thou shall not kill. Murder and killing are different. One can be justified (or not), The other is never justified. The commandments, Per Jesus, Are two fold; Love God, And Love neighbor. You cannot love God without faith, And faith should lead you to love your neighbor. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: "Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these (Mark 12:30-31)". To me, Text is probably the best form of communication. You ask "why not simply coming on down here and talk to us", Guess what, He did, And look how that turned out. Even with incarnate God on earth, Man still did not believe, And not only this, They seek to put Him to death, And do so. What makes you think that we today are any better in this society than were those of the past that saw the miracles, And still did not use their agency to follow God?

As this debate comes to a close, I would like to point something very important out. TWO out of your only three sources ALSO are pro LGBT https://hbr.org... https://journals.humankinetics.com... The third one we wouldn't necessarily disagree with as yes, women and men are different and some ways but that doesn't prove anything. I don't need to be saved. Satan took care of that and her crowd seems a lot friendlier. So ironic because according to her nine laws, I could marry or date who I want with no issue. Basically, they say nobody should be an a hole and that's about it. I like that. As would many. SO MUCH of your evidence has been from the bile as I figured and again, without it, there would not be much of a reason to be so against LGBTQA+. Your other sources don't even fully back up what you say and you constantly use insults in order to make you seem right when all the comments seem to disagree. Again, do you read the bible? DO you ever sit down and really look at it? Because remember, I was lectured about it EVERY DAY for eight months in one of THE most holy cities in the world. Pretty sure I have a decent understanding of it and why I wouldn't like it. The concept of hell doesn't even exist in Judaism. And even though Rabbis often do not like LGBTQA+ stuff, they are way more understanding of it than you seem to be. Stop trying to act like you must be right. What if I told you your god is BS? Your bible is BS? YOU are BSing? I could take your bible and burn it and feel no remorse. It's a book. A few thousand year old book and pretty childish to believe in it SO heavily. Start in the beginning with a snake that can talk, then to go on that the entire world was flooded, not to mention "IF ye do this, ye be put to death!" mentioned so often. Religions in general should have been a way to keep good morals in people and put ruler ship above a king, but as you demonstrate, it is now corrupt and not needed. Mankind has advanced enough to figure out on it's own what is moral based on secular law and we all know it works way better. Imagine without religious corruption, no 9/11. no huge wars breaking out, no death over things like two guys wanting marriage, less hatred if a person is this or that way, etc. You can tell me all you want Imma burn in hell. Hah, if it even exists. YOU don't actually know. YOU are guessing just like most believers because that is what they are told since birth. If you think for one second telling me I am a sinner for being queer and that I'll burn in hell will change me, WRONG. It won't. In fact, there is a cute guy next door. I think I may ask him out for tomorrow. And only you to thank. We'll reserve our table at a super gay cafe under your username. And then, we will make out and have a nice big beefy sexual session with only you to thank for the idea. :D I actually want to thank you! I am now super turned on by the thought of it! I think this bible you talk about can help indulge in our foreplay too! We can use the pages as wipes after we are done! :D

I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic disorder, rather it's a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association has deemed sexual orientation to be fluid, or changeable throughout a person's lifetime. Sexual desire is not genetic, it is in the mind. I am arguing the opposite position, that homosexuality is not a genetic disorder. However I am going further to say that genetics have nothing to do with sexual orientation. There is no evidence that genetics plays any role in sexual orientation. Studies of identical twins show that if one twin is homosexual, the other rarely is, "only 11% of the time in men and 14% of the time in women" [1]. If identical twins are created by the splitting of a single fertilized egg into two 100% genetically identical ovum, then if one twin is gay, then the other twin would also have to be gay, since they would both share this hypothetical "gay" gene shared between their genetically identical DNA. Therefore, homosexuality is not genetic, rather a product of outside forces not related to genetics. [1] http://amazinghealth.com...

Are homosexuals really hurting anyone? apparently you did not read my entire argument, yes absolutely they are they are statistically speaking they are spreading sexually transmitted diseases in an enormous rate more specifically HIV, in the 1960's the HIV virus was a issue in the homosexual community ONLY after a few years did it eventually reach everyone who is sexually active, also committing crimes? absolutely as well you apparently did not read my post completely, according to a study done in 04 more than 75% of child molestations were performed by members of the active homosexual community. And apparently you did not read my comments again, they are not being judged by their orientation they are being judge on there dysfunction's and the clearly unhealthy and abominable lifestyle they lead. Also do you truly believe the founding fathers would have supported the homosexual community? its not even worth mentioning

Con stated: I compared this to black America's struggle in school systems. They were white funded. They received less funding, less books, and the buildings were in much poorer shape. Rebuttal: Civil union is a universal alternative to marriage. It cannot be compared to separated schools. The school where either "white" or they where entirely "black". Civil union is open to anyone. Con is trying to win a sympathy vote by appealing to a genuine horror of the race struggles past. Gay marriage is not synonymous with race struggles. A homosexual was never declared 3/5th human and homosexuals didn't require voting acts rights. The homosexual community has a fair opportunity to fight for their rights. Civil union is the result of the gay movement. It was not conceived by straight men and women. The current incarnation of civil union is being pushed by the gay community. It originated in Vermont. The court case of Baker v. Vermont [1] ended in 2000, yielding a controversial recognition of a gay couple's right to join in union and be granted the same rights. It's not the evil heterosexual empire's design. The gay community created civil union. It' hard to play the victim, when you designed your own "oppression". Con failed to refute my arguments concerning the voting population amongst the gay movement. If marriage is truly for anyone, then it should be easy to convince everyone. The votes are lacking for a reason. Argument extended to next round. Con argued about the establishment of the 14th amendment concerning the civil liberty to marry. This is Con's source: http://civilliberty.about.com... Rebuttal: The 14th amendment was created to protect the civil rights of non-whites. Again, not a gay struggle. This amendment allowed interracial marriage between racially distinct, heterosexual couples. This does not pertain to homosexual marriage. Neither does any other race struggle. You're riding the coattail of civil rights giants. Con is still arguing that homosexuality is a casual choice between milk or juice. Rebuttal: While the evidence is lacking that people are born gay, there is plenty of evidence that: Once the human brain maps out it's sexuality during childhood, it's almost always permanent. Homosexuality is generally not a choice. (While there are a lot of "poser" gays, true homosexuality begins during early childhood.) [2] Gender confusion, homosexuality or gender neutrality are recognized as being real, however, their existence does not merit that we change marriage. Christians and Muslims also recognize each other. That doesn't mean that they should start worshipping in each others shrines. Civil liberty is not always absolute. Con said: In order to be married you need a license, you do not need a wedding. Rebuttal: Wow. Wrong. The license needs to be signed by the officiating authority at your wedding. Whether it's a lavish church wedding, or a court hearing. You need a wedding. As quoted by the source: The wedding ceremony must take place within this period; if not, the couple will need to apply for a new marriage license.[3] 　 Next Round Arguments: Existing restrictions on marriage: Restrictions to marriage have always existed. For instance: You cannot get married if you're already married. You cannot get married to a relative. You cannot get married to an animal. You cannot get married to extend legal status to an immigrant. Love is not enough. Neither is good intention. 　 http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://www.cwfa.org... [2] http://www.kingcounty.gov... [3]

My argument is that its bad to be gay. Its WRONG to be gay because its a perversion of the God created natural order, but that debate is for another day. I'm here today to debate why its BAD. The first reason its bad is because its statistically proven that homosexual men live around 20 years shorter than straight men. Besides that, both anal and oral sex can cause serious viruses including genital warts, gonorrhea and HIV to name a few. As well as the fact that homosexuals are 2-6 times more likely to attempt suicide, with 50% saying they've attempted it twice. Some say they're depressed from discrimination, but with all these acceptance movements that hard to believe. I would just like to make it clear now that I am not anti-homosexuals, just anti-homosexuality. I don't want to force them to become straight, I just want them to know the side-effects of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all.

You want to play? All right, I'll play. First of all, I thank my opponent for finally laying down in plain language what questions he expects me to answer. You said a whole bunch of other stuff, but I'm going to skip down to your 14 questions. Q1. In what way do you perceive Homosexuality leads to incestual relationships? A1. When society decides they're going to throw away an ancient taboo concerning who you can and who you cannot marry, why won't they throw away other millenia-old marriage taboos? Q2. Why does heterosexuality not lead to incestual relationships? A2. Not closely related heterosexual relationships are not taboo in any culture. No taboo is thrown away through this. Q3. Why is incestual relationships a problem? A3. Aside from the fact that it is also a taboo and that its emergence can get rid of further taboos, it's problematic genetic-wise, and society could only withstand a small minority engaging in these kind of relationships. Q4. How did you come to the conclusion that an animal "not running away" means the animal gives consent to a human? Do you have statistics and evidence that demonstrates an animal's psychological reactance and behaviors? A4. Likewise, do you have any evidence that an animal "not running away" is evidence that it is frozen with fear or that, in spite of being sexually mature, does not understand the nature of what is going on? Q5. In what way do you perceive Homosexuality leads to bestiality? A5. Same as incest. It's a taboo that can get thrown aside after the first taboo is thrown aside. Q6. Why does heterosexuality not lead to bestiality? A6. Same as incest. Not closely related both human heterosexual relationships are not a taboo in any culture. No taboo is thrown away through this. Q7. Is homosexuality to you 100% about sex, is it about human romance? A7. It is the byproduct of sexual depravity. Yes, unless it is about dominance it is about sex. Q8. In what ways does bestiality have anything to do with human romance? A8. Well there's a human involved, isn't there? Q9. In the last round you said this a few times: If you dismiss this argument, you also dismiss this argument from pro-gay usage. Can you explain your thought proces on why you feel it is necessary to argue other people's arguments rather than the 2 clear contentions I laid out in Round 1? A9. This debate is about the slippery slope argument. Q10. Do you find it contradictory at all that all of your arguments can be re-directed back to heterosexuality? If not can you explain in detail how they are not? A10. As I've stated before, same-species not closely related heterosexuality isn't a taboo in any culture. No taboos are broken through this. Q11. In what way do you perceive homosexuality leads to pedophila? A11. Actually, pedophilia was not a taboo in most ancient cultures. By pedophila i'm referring to teenagers entering relationships with adults. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, neither one leads to something that has already existed. I give you this one. Q12. Why does heterosexuality not lead to pedophilia? A12. Actually, according to nature pedophilia is natural. I give you this one too. Q13. In your last round you said this "gayness isn't actually natural in humans." Can you provide me the source of where you got this information? A13. I don't trust the pro-gay data coming in from scientists who are pro-gay, the same way I don't trust pro-climate change data coming from pro-climate change scientists. You cannot always trust slanted studies. Q14. In your last round you said this "the animal smoochers and the sister smoochers and the 40 year olds with the 15 year old girlfriends are inspired to fight for their 'rights' by the homosexuals" Can you provide me with the source of where you got this information? A14. Well, I honestly don't yet, since the pro-incest, pro-zoophilia, and pro-pedophile movements have yet to emerge. Neither of us can either confirm this or un-confirm this until it happens. However, it makes sense that one group of people fighting for their "rights" leads to a group of similar people fighting for their "rights." There, I answered your 14 questions. You say I haven't provided any proof, but that's because I cannot offer you concrete proof, considering the movements mentioned above are yet to have emerged. But in 20 years or so, you'll see that I was right. All you need is a really smart guy who can argue his case well and you can justify well-night anything. If all you have is logic and statistics, you can find ways to justify homosexuality, incest, bestiality, and pedophilia, as well as adultery, one night stands, illicit drug usage, and maybe even cannibalism (with limiitations, of course). Heck, I could advocate child abuse by telling you it makes them tougher. Logic will betray society one day and give way to the legalization of various behaviors. It already has with homosexuality. The only thing standing in the way is this line, the line I mentioned. The line that no matter what kind of justification you have this line must not be crossed. Doubtless you'll think that I still haven't answered your contentions. You'll think my arguments are "irrelevent," "straw arguments," "beating around the bush," "ridiculous," "lacking proof," bla bla bla. And you're not the first one. There was another debater here on DDO who did the same thing when I debated him. So it is not enough for you people simply to provide a rebuttal for my arguments?! If this is what every debater I come across does to me, I'm not going to play this game anymore. Bubba the Clown is finished with organized debates, or at least for the time being. Maybe I'll still hang around the polls and forums. Feel free to declare yourself the victor here.

A common position held by many LGBT activists in order to justify the radical behavior of Homosexuals is the argument that "they can't help it...They're BORN this way." I find this statement dangerous not only because it's a lie but also because it removes all hope of a better life from a person struggling with homosexual behavior. Considering the average life expectancy of Homosexuals has consistently been significantly lower than heterosexuals[1] And has significantly elevated health risks[2] Why would this be a lifestyle choice we'd want to ever encourage? [1] https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com... [2] http://glma.org... Rules: Both Pro and Con must stay on the points they are advocating for: [PRO] I am advocating that Homosexuality is a choice and not something you are born with [CON] Will argue Homosexuality is something you are born with and is not a choice Both Pro and Con must put citations to all claims they make. Thank you and happy debating!

Con claims that only non humans can be hermaphrodites. Google Dictionary of the word disagrees and states clearly a person can be hermaphrodite. https://www. Google. Com/search? Q=hermaphrodite+define&oq=herma&aqs=chrome. 2. 69i57j69i60j35i39l2j0. 16848j0j7&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#sbfbu=1 Con then states that it has been proven that transgender people under medical examination that a transgender person shows up as the sex they identify as in the sexual orgains located in the human brain. As before they transition they have one set of sexual orgains in areas of the gut and another in the brain they meet the above cited accepted use of the word hermaphrodite. In addition Con demtritites an acceptance that all other sexual organisms known to science have 3 genders but does not make any agrument on why this would not apply to humans as well; as all other biological processes, And scientific research show that humans are just another form of sexual organism with a higher than average IQ. Con also implies that I am presenting this agrument in a way that would be offensive to the LGBTQ community when my argument gives a scientific provable case for their fundamental rights. A simple examination of their DNA show mutations on the sexual chromosomes, X and Y genes, Proving in a factual way that they were born LGBTQ and have a fundamental right to be given the same rights and privileges afforded to non LGBTQ human beings. I simply have applied the same logic of the fundamental facts of biology the the ancient world gave them to be themselves because there is 3 sexes in nature and not two.

As my opponent appears to have turned my sources around to benefit his arguments I am sure he will not mind if I do the same. But let us first address the BOP issue: Con began this debate and therefore is responsible for proving without a doubt that homosexuality is NOT a choice,ever, the BOP is always with the O.P. (always has been)and cannot be abandoned because Con decided to pass the buck. This being said I will gladly sum up the evidence I have already provided proving that the only logical conclusion one may come to is that homosexuality is indeed at least partly a choice and sexuality is fluid. Although, because my opponent has abandoned his burden of proof, I will consider that a forfeiture of the round and thus by his own rules a win for the debate. My opponent has attempted a clever but not so elusive dishonesty tactic by listing his sources by numbering them 1-14(As if more sources is equal to a better argument). There is a fundamental problem with this as if one examines the list you will find that he has used the same source on several occasions and yet has given the same source different numbers to make it seem as if he had this huge number of sources when he in fact only had a few which I will further scrutinize. Lets start with the source which my opponent claims to have used the most, Wikipedia- Wikipedia is not a viable source as my opponent himself could very well have provided the inaccurate information. As for the Harvard link which my opponent claims he has used to his benefit; he clearly did not look at the date of the information gathered (1985). Near thirty year old research and now known to be inaccurate. There is not one single piece of evidence which can prove a biological link although homosexuals have and will misinterpret, misrepresent, or flat out lie regarding the results of such research. Although assertions and research persist the only thing close to realizing a biological link is epigenetics which there is still very little known about in terms of a possible relationship with sexual orientation. My opponent claims (as I predicted in round one) that Ex-gays are merely homosexuals who are repressing their urges. It is clear my opponent has a misunderstanding of sexuality. Sexuality is not just the act but the attraction, which means it is based on how we identify ourselves. These people now self identify as heterosexual after years of identifying as homosexual. This undercuts all of my opponents arguments which were lacking in evidence anyway. My opponent has listed a lot of information which points to and hypothesizes about a genetic link but none of his evidence proves the link. So we must conclude no proof exist to establish a genetic link. The evidence I provided is direct statements from individuals who experienced this change in sexuality first hand and there is no reason to believe that they are all being dishonest. Since my opponent will undoubtedly argue that because of a recent debate here on ddo that Wikipedia is a viable source, and since we are now engaged in using each others sources to further our own arguments; I too will use Wikipedia. The APA(one of my opponents most heavily relied upon sources) is not a reliable source because the DSM has been proven to lack validity and credibility. "The revisions of the DSM from the 3rd Edition forward have been mainly concerned with diagnostic reliability"the degree to which different diagnosticians agree on a diagnosis. It was argued that a science of psychiatry can only advance if diagnosis is reliable. If clinicians and researchers frequently disagree about a diagnosis with a patient, then research into the causes and effective treatments of those disorders cannot advance. Hence, diagnostic reliability was a major concern of DSM-III. When the diagnostic reliability problem was thought to be solved, subsequent editions of the DSM were concerned mainly with "tweaking" the diagnostic criteria. Unfortunately, neither the issue of reliability (accurate measurement) or validity (do these disorders really exist) was settled. However, most psychiatric education post DSM-III focused on issues of treatment"especially drug treatment"and less on diagnostic concerns. In fact, Thomas R. Insel, M.D., Director of the NIMH, has recently stated the agency would no longer fund research projects that rely exclusively on DSM criteria due to its lack of validity. Field trials of DSM-5 brought the debate of reliability back into the limelight as some disorders showed poor reliability. For example Major Depressive Disorder a common mental illness had a poor reliability Kappa statistic of 0.28 indicating that clinicians frequently disagreed on this diagnosis in the same patients. The most reliable diagnosis was Major Neurocognitive Disorder with a Kappa of 0.78". http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent claims to have "turned" my source (www.harvard.edu) but has in fact further proven my case: As it says very clearly at the end of the paragraph regarding the Harvard link, There is some evidence for PREDISPOSITION, which is not the same as predeterminism. If it is not predetermined that it must be at least partly choice thus proving an alternate resolution. www.harvard.edu And yes, let us turn our attention to the AmericanThinker.com link : My opponent has made the fallacious argument that because the debate is about whether or not homosexuality is a choice, that the fact that one can choose whether or not to have sex, somehow negates the possibility of sexuality being a choice. Without both the act and the attraction there is no homosexuality, therefore it is just as important and necessary to analyze the act as it is the attraction. In other words your turn was unsuccessful sir. Lets also examine your other self proclaimed source turn: Turn No. 2 Next, let's look at TheNation.com. This source writes: "No one this side of the rainbow flag is arguing that people choose the direction of their romantic and sexual desires in the way that someone might, say, choose between different brands of toothpaste. Desire happens unbidden." P1. Desires are not chosen P2. Homosexuality is a sexual desire for someone of the same sex C1. Homosexuality is not chosen You are equating two very different things here, actions and desire. Desire does not equal homosexuality. Sexual preference plus activity, is indeed equal to homosexuality. Sexual activity is a choice, therefore sexuality is at least partly a choice. You have also made the enormous mistake of assuming that "this source write's" means that this is the opinion of the site from where it was retrieved TheNation.com. It could not possibly be just the opinion of a contributor to the site right? I mean how would you explain the quotation mark's? I hope that it is understood this is sarcasm. Essentially what I am saying is that you cannot call a contributors opinion evidence of anything. And --Presto! I have shown your research and sourcing methods are overwhelmingly flawed and are therefore invalid as the overall credibility is not just in question but obviously unreliable. We should reject Cons hyperlinked sources because they have proven too unreliable as I have shown throughout this argument. D. Food for Thought- I find it disturbing that you seem to be an intelligent person, but you think that this is equal to evidence: "If people lived in a culture that castigated homosexuals for who they are, do you think they would come out as gay? Many people don't handle the social rejection well, and many want to keep those social and familial ties they risk losing when they come out. Yet, that doesn't stop them from coming out in such cultures. Really, if homosexuality were chosen, rational people in such close-minded societies would save themselves the pain and choose to be heterosexual instead. The fact that people come out as gay in those societies is thus evidence that homosexuality is not a choice." The fact that people come out in countries or societies where homosexuality is forbidden, is far from evidence that sexuality is not a choice. It is not even close to evidence, it is not even close to professional opinion, it is simply your opinion, and it is not based on knowledge but on clear bias. Conclusion: If during this debate one has decided homosexuality is even partly choice I have won this debate. If during this debate you were unable to prove that all ex-gay individuals are in denial and lying, I have won this debate. If during this debate you were unable to prove that homosexuality occurs in nature (in non-human animals), I have won this debate. If during this debate you have failed to prove that biological factor exists, I have won this debate. If your most prominent sources have been proven inaccurate and lacking in credibility, I have won this debate. I with all due respect to my opponent have won this debate, my opponent, although worthy, has failed to accomplish the impossible task of proving homosexuality is not a choice. The thousands of ex gays, and the lack of evidence for a genetic link are enough to establish beyond a doubt that sexuality is at least partly a choice. Even if one feels I did not "prove" my case; it is necessary to decide if my opponent proved his case, which I do not see as evident. When it comes down to it there is simply not comprehensive enough research with the necessary representativeness to answer some questions. In this case there is little question as to what the research does not show, it does not show a genetic link. It does show thousands of ex gays who claim(firsthand evidence)that they are now living as happy heterosexuals. (Choice) Sources: Psychologist and Biologist James D. Weinrich www.harvard.edu/docs/animalmyth.html Behavior, genetics expert,Dr. Thomas Bouchard Dr. Simon Levay-Geneticist Nimmons, 1994, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley


Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Transsexuality and the Bible: A Closer Look at Gender and Sin

What does the Bible say about gender and sexuality? The Bible states that God created humans in His image, male and female (Genesis 1:27). This implies that there are only two sexes: male and female, and two genders: masculine and feminine. Consequently, only one sexual orientation exists: heterosexuality, which leads to heterosexual marriage, as there is no room for same-sex marriage in the original paradigm created by God (Genesis 2:24).

Before the fall, the paradigm for sex, gender, and sexual orientation was as follows:

* Male: XY chromosome; male genitalia
* Female: XX chromosome; female genitalia
* Masculine: state of being male
* Feminine: state of being female
* Heterosexuality: romantic attraction to the opposite sex

After the fall, the paradigm changed to:

* Male sex: male DNA; genitalia
* Female sex: female DNA; genitalia
* Masculinity: male gender identity
* Femininity: female gender identity
* Sexual orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual

In the debate on transsexuality from a Biblical perspective, we must examine the logical premises and conclusions. Premise 1: It is abnormal for a person with a male body to desire sex with another person with a male body because they feel they are a "she." Premise 2: The abnormality lies either in the mind or the body. Conclusion: Treatment, either psychological or medical, is necessary to make them "normal."

Today, modern psychology dismisses the former, while modern science supports the latter. This leads us to conclude that the Leviticus Law prohibits sexual orientation, not gender identity. The Leviticus Law only applies to males having sexual intercourse with other males (Leviticus 20:13). People who are natural-born eunuchs are not males but females in gender (transgender). Therefore, the Leviticus Law is not against people with gender dysphoria, but only against homosexual sex of males with heterosexual orientation.

The causes of transsexualism can be divided into natural (biological, post-adamic state) and environmental (nurture of biological dispositions). Scientifically, transsexualism can be explained by hormonal/neurological factors (natural cause) and the nurturing of the mind to a specific gender (man/woman) (nurture cause). Biblically, transsexual

I infact believe that being gay is not a choice. I would believe that over 50% of gay people would love to infact experience the love of a woman rather than a man. Being gay is actually a forced decision which was brought upon since the day you happened to be born. People like me on the other hand "Bisexuals", rather have it much different. we are a minority in the social community and often find it hard to cope. Around 70% of Bisexuals do not reveal the fact that they are, but try to make themselves seem as heterosexual as possible. I on the other hand feel comfortable to talk about my sexual situation as i feel no harm in it whatsoever. The main reason thought that gay people try to hide the fact of their homosexuality, it because of the reason of "rejection from society." At one stage i feared the same rejection factor but had to make a tough decision. The decision lead me to acceptance from my family and friends and now im happily in a relationship. Overall, being gay is not a decision but something you are born with and must accept to live a happy life.

Why are gays so bad? You said you're opposed to this subject because "it's bad enough having gays around". Those who are gay or lesbian are people just like you and me with feelings. They are part of society whether you like it or not. Love is love whether it's between two people of the opposite sex or two people of the same sex. It's not you in the relationship, so you don't have to deal with the decisions they make. Personally I am straight, but I find what you said offensive considering I do have gay friends. Truthfully they are no different then you and me except for their sexual orientation. If for some reason it disgusts you seeing them together look away, it's as simple as that. You have no right to hate on them for their choices of which do not affect you. I believe God made each and everyone of us perfectly in his eyes and if he chose for someone to be gay then that's his perfect vision of that person. God makes no mistakes. He also wishes for every single one of his children to be treated with kindness and equality. So next time you see a gay couple please reconsider judging them negatively, after all it's God's place to judge his children not yours.

Hello again, let's get right to it! Again you do not point to any evidence in which dictates that one's sexuality determines if there is bias in a researcher's work. What background do you come from that makes you able to make such a blanket argument? It seems to me, that you may only have generalization to back that portion of your argument up - by which, I openly welcome you to try to prove me wrong. As someone with a Psychology and Statistics credit, I will say this; the background of the researcher does not influence the results of the studies. If you never heard of a "double blind" study, it is when both those conducting the study and those in the study do not know if one is receiving the treatment or the placebo. There would be no way for the researcher to impose his/her bias against those being studied in this case; results are results, no matter if it brings comfort to the researcher or not. An extreme source of bias would come from those participating in it. Wiederman has done a terrific study of the existence of volunteer bias in the spectrum of sexuality; to which I strongly recommend you to educate yourself in. For your #1 "evidence" figure, you have shot yourself in the foot. Yes, homosexuality is not considered a mental illness; hence it is not a psychological issue. I need not say more. For your #2 "evidence" figure, http://cdn.deseretnews.com... is not a reliable source. However, the Regnerus study found that "Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents." For your #3 "evidence" figure, I do not see how sexual violence is relevant to the topic. Again, you utilize an unreliable source (procon.org) and therefore I am having a difficult time perceiving your arguments as fact. I will however take down such an argument with a case by which an heterosexual female, whom was molested by a male, having an heterosexual relationship. Karmilla Pillay-Siokos states, after several years since being raped, "On the night of my 21st birthday, I got more drunk than I have ever been before or since. At some point in the evening I surfaced from the haze to realize that I was alone with a guy in his room. There was a sudden flashback to the rape. He realized immediately that I wasn"t okay and took me straight back to my friends without touching me anymore."When they eventually ended up making love, "he was soft and gentle and everything that a girl wants her first time to be. In the next three months he helped me to fully appreciate my body and understand my sexuality. That was probably the first step on my healing journey."" To generalize that being raped makes you homosexual, is false. In terms of your argument #4, you are talking of a mere child; someone whom hasn't even made it past maturity yet. I find that not to be sufficient evidence, as there are many people whom suffered through neglectful parents that are openly heterosexual. There is, in fact, evidence to prove that homosexuality is genetic. Sergey Gavrilets and William R Rice reports specific biological factors that contribute to homosexuality; "Throughout the manuscript, A is an allele that has little or no influence on sexual orientation, and allele a masculinizes or feminizes both sexes, and thereby increases the probability of homosexuality in the discordant sex. For example, it is well known that environmental chemicals can produce intersexual individuals in fishes and other vertebrates (Devlin & Nagahama 2002). A feminizing allele a would be one that canalized development towards the female sex-determination pathway. Such an allele would be favoured in females because it protects them when exposed to masculinizing environmental conditions, but this same allele, when expressed in males, would feminize them and could thereby lead to homosexuality." I look forward to your reply. http://www.tandfonline.com... http://www.frc.org... http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org... http://www.contributoria.com...

The gay movement is the only movement other than the pedophile movement that has been profoundly driven by pedophiles and sexual predators. It's literally impossible to teach about the history of the gay movement without mentioning pedophiles and sexual predators because pedophiles and sexual predators have been instrumental in driving the gay movement

You assert that marriage was "birthed from God". You assert that this therefore implies gay marriage is not acceptable. You assert that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah supports your interpretation (the Jews may want a word with you on that issue). You assert that conservative Christianity is true. I am not looking for your assertions - I can infer those from what you have already said. What I am looking for is arguments, logic, and proof. Your argument rests on these assertions being true, so it is critical that you then give me evidence to support them. As a sidenote, "natural selection" is just favourable heritable traits becoming more common as the generations pass on by. If homosexuality is not subject to negative natural selection pressures, you cannot "scientifically" demonstrate that it will just disappear. In fact, homosexuality may not be subject to direct selection pressures at all. Regardless of whether homosexuality will or will not someday disappear from humanity, however, this is not a relevant consideration to our discussion: natural selection is not a *normative* consideration. It isn't as though species have a set plan and those who stray from that plan are "punished" by some magical force. In fact, human societies are larger and more prosperous than they have ever been at any point in history - if you are trying to say that our "noncomformance" to some magical "natural order" is going to result in our demise, you ought to pick a different time period to make such a grand statement! Once again, until you can prove that your conservative Christian outlook is true, nothing you say seems to particularly matter: I can just as easily claim, by fiat, that God agrees with me. If we don't provide logical or empirical support for our statements, debate becomes meaningless.

My argument is that its bad to be gay. Its WRONG to be gay because its a perversion of the God created natural order, but that debate is for another day. I'm here today to debate why its BAD. The first reason its bad is because its statistically proven that homosexual men live around 20 years shorter than straight men. Besides that, both anal and oral sex can cause serious viruses including genital warts, gonorrhea and HIV to name a few. As well as the fact that homosexuals are 2-6 times more likely to attempt suicide, with 50% saying they've attempted it twice. Some say they're depressed from discrimination, but with all these acceptance movements that hard to believe. I would just like to make it clear now that I am not anti-homosexuals, just anti-homosexuality. I don't want to force them to become straight, I just want them to know the side-effects of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all.

I've heard people say that everyone is a little gay or somewhat bi-sexual. I disagree. I think there are folks that are not sexually attracted to the same gender in the slightest.

In what sense are you talking about being "the same"? Gays or physically? I do agree that girls and boys using each other's bathrooms or anything else. I was reading this on article about a girl who worked at Macy's lost her job because she refused to let a transgender man use the women's dressing rooms. Do you understand how ridiculous that is? What if he wasn't really transgender, she let him in, and he ended up raping a little girl or something? That's terrible to think about, but that's what kind of world we live in. I'm not exactly sure what point your making in your argument, but i'm assuming you want to focus on gays, so that's the path we'll go. Gays are who they are. We all are who we are. Does that make it right? No. As I said before, I do disagree with gays, but it's their life and their choice, not mine. As humans, we have no right to judge each other. God is our judge, and what they do is between them and God. We have no right to tell them not to be gay, nor do we have the right to tell them how to raise their kids. It is sad, in my opinion, that so many kids are growing up lost, gay, atheist, etc. We began as One Nation Under God, but we're falling short of that rather quickly. Last I read, only 32% of the world is Christian. What about us? 75% of the US and Canada WAS Christian, but that number is constantly dropping. Nobody believes in spanking their kids anymore, because that's apparently considered child abuse. That's not abuse, it's discipline! I'm from the south, and believe me, it makes me sick to see the corruption in our world! If you read in the Bible (I use KJV), it says the the antichrist will be either asexual or homosexual ( http://www.stempublishing.com... , http://www.abovetopsecret.com... ), and the world better wake up, because Jesus is coming back. "2 Thess. 2:9 . . His coming shall be after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders." I have an idea of who it may be, though I will not publicly state who I theorize about. "Daniel 9:26 refers to [the antichrist] as the ruler of the people that will come, meaning that he will be of the royal lineage of the race that destroyed Jerusalem. Historically this was the Roman Empire; therefore he will be predominantly Roman." This argument isn't exactly an argument, as I'm not sure what in the world your main focus is, so there's my opinion.

ok. . . 1 No it is biological and part of your DNA. You cannot deny that. 2 You didn't provide any evidence, Just a cheesy 1-liner. 3 At the start of humanity, Before people could change their gender, Than there were only two genders and they were (and still are) set in stone. Why are we suddenly deciding that we can change them now? At least bring an argument to the table.

Again, my position in this debate is to prove the fact that not all people are born strictly as either a boy or a girl. I have to address this right off the bat to ensure a respectful and productive debate: "I also have a weird feeling that everything you say is going to be opinionated, with no real factual evidence to support your statements, in which case I will leave this debate." Okay---take a deep breath. First of all, you don't know me. You know nothing about me or my debating style, and you need to STOP making judgments and START worrying about defending your side because I'd love to see you come up with one piece of factual, non opinion-based evidence to support the claim that there's no such thing as a person with two sexes. I was highly tempted to leave this debate and reopen it with the hopes of finding someone more mature to spar with---but I can't pass up the opportunity to prove wrong a few people who seem never to have bothered to pick up a textbook on biology in their lives. Let's act our age, hm? My argument will go as follows: 1) I will provide a definition of sex and explain the distinction between sex and gender. 2) I will provide examples of multi-sexed, interchangeably-sexed, and non-sexed non-human animals 3) I will bring up my main point: intersex individuals, and provide their existence as proof of the inalienable truth that sex, even from birth, is not as simple as male or female. There is a big difference between sex and gender. "Sex" is generally accepted to denote the biological properties of an animal in terms of reproductive organs and ability, while "gender" is a more broad term referring to the behavior, identity, and expression of human beings in a related but not necessarily parallel relationship to ones' sex [1]. According to the World Health Organization, "'Male' and 'female' are sex categories, while 'masculine' and 'feminine' are gender categories." It is my personal position that one can be born with a gender that opposes their sex, or with multiple genders, or with a fluidity of gender, or with no gender at all. But this debate is about sex---biological characteristics---and I will not be arguing for the grayness of gender. So how does one categorize a sex as male v.s. female? I start broad and get more specific as I eliminate categories for how one might define sex. Is sex defined by who gives birth, as my opponent suggested? My opponent stated as his main argument that "the definition of male is: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. While the definition of female is: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. Basically, you either have something that fertilizes an egg, or you have the eggs." First, I will say that as far as the animal kingdom widely goes, the first half of this statement, that "[the male] produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring," is not entirely true. For this I will be using the example of sea-horses. In the case of sea-horses, it is true that the male produces sperm and the female produces eggs, but only in those regards is my opponent correct. In the act of sea-horse reproduction, a female is neither fertilized nor inseminated, nor does the female produce offspring. [2] Eggs are deposited by the female into the male, where they are fertilized by his sperm, he becomes pregnant, and eventually produces offspring. Now that I have disproved this part of my opponents statement as fallacious, since his definition of what separates the sexes was falsely based, I will move on, seeing as how in the case of sea-horses, a male and female still exist independent of each other. Is sex, then, defined by which individuals, when born, will eventually have the ability to reproduce in which way? Not always. There are those animals, such as the Clown Anemonefish, which can change sex during the course of their life. [3] They are all born male, and "[t]hey have the ability to switch their sex, but will do so only to become the dominant female of a group" [3]. This means that as birth, the individuals that will eventually come to play each role in mating are not yet determined. So is sex defined by the sexual organs that a creature possesses? Not necessarily. In the case of hyenas, females possess what science refers to as a psuedo-penis. While not technically a functioning penis but rather an elongated vaginal canal, the appendage does come with a greatly increased level of testosterone to those usually seen in females of any species, and the exhibition of dominant, "man-like" behaviours. [4] In the case of the rare gynandromorphic Antheraea frithi moth, both sexes exist in the form of "a partial set of female organs and [a partial set of male organs], neither part being functional," and a split in coloring down the middle of its body. [5] This sexual duality exists as well in larger animals such as the gynandromorphic cardinal [6]. Other animals, called biological hermaphrodites, have a working pair of each sex of organ, such as the snail [7]. So in animals, sex-duality exists, plain and simple. But these arguments are for the existence of non-humans with two or no clear sexes, and I am trying to argue that HUMANS aren't always born as a boy v.s. girl. My argument is clear, simply, and indisputable: intersex people exist. You don't hear about them often in popular media, and if at all, only in the throws of reality tv, labeled as freaks. But intersex people exist, and their invisibility in our culture does not negate their reality. An intersex person is any person born with ambiguous genitalia, two genitalia, or some other combination of sexual organs that has no definition in our society and within typical definitions of biology. According to MedlinePlus [8], "Intersex can be divided into four categories: 46, XX Intersex 46, XY Intersex True Gonadal Intersex Complex or Undetermined Intersex." Those who are True Gonadal Intersex, possibly the clearest example of those who are neither a girl nor a boy at birth, "may have XX chromosomes, XY chromosomes, or both. The external genitals may be ambiguous or may appear to be female or male." [8] This is my case. I feel that it is unbreachable, and I look forward to an amiable debate, if you feel that I have not already won. Sources: [1] http://www.who.int... [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://animals.nationalgeographic.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... (and the fact that I study Animal Behavior Theory and Biology in college) [5] http://www.nhm.ac.uk... [6] http://news.discovery.com... [7] http://www.snail-world.com... [8] http://www.nlm.nih.gov...


Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Homosexuality is an inherent trait that individuals are born with, and it is unchangeable. Since the burden of proof has not been established, we can assume that the onus is on the party that claims homosexuality is not an innate characteristic. To support my argument, I will assert that homosexuality is a result of nature, not nurture. In the field of biology, we learn about traits that are determined by various factors, such as physical, environmental, and spiritual. Physical factors include characteristics like eye color or hair texture, while environmental factors encompass experiences and influences from the surroundings. Spiritual factors pertain to beliefs and values that shape an individual's worldview. Although some traits are determined by physical factors, our behavior is predominantly shaped by environmental and spiritual factors. A person's sexuality falls under the category of being influenced by environmental factors. Eight significant studies on identical twins have demonstrated that homosexuality is not a genetic trait. Identical twins share the same DNA and prenatal conditions. If homosexuality were caused by genetics or prenatal factors, and one twin is homosexual, the co-twin should also be homosexual. However, the studies reveal that if one identical twin has same-sex attraction, the chances of the co-twin having it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women. This indicates that homosexuality cannot be genetically determined. The primary factors that contribute to homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other must be post-birth factors. Dr. Whitehead believes that same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by "non-shared factors," such as experiences or events that occur to one twin but not the other. For instance, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, while the other does not. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. These individual and unique responses to random events and common environmental factors are predominant in shaping sexual orientation. Humans exhibit a wide range of sexual feelings and behaviors, particularly evident in American culture, which is saturated with images and references to sex and romantic love. Our identities as individuals are often intertwined with our romantic tendencies and how they manifest in our relationships. Sometimes, an individual's sexual behavior is used as a measure of their moral or religious beliefs. Our collective understanding of how human sexuality should be expressed is reflected in the rights and liberties that structure our lives as citizens. However, it is crucial to recognize that we are not born homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Our sexual expression can change over time, towards different people, through different experiences. A

My stance is that gays are born, can reproduce, and are not recruiting. I'm not sure what the opposing side is stating on this. I think there is some scientific explanation for Gays, though I'm not sure never bother to look into the topic. Burden of proof is 51% on Pro. Thanks for the debate.

Here is my main source. Please read this before reading the rest, if for nothing other than fun. Also note I was challenged to this debate. http://www.debate.org... Romans 1:27 says "And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved." However just a few pages past that, and probably the same page in most bibles it says in Romans 3:23 "For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard." You don't become a Christian by being sinless. The bible states this is impossible. You become a Christian by accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and asking for forgiveness for your sins. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." You can be a homosexual, serial killer or any other deplorable thing in the world and be a Christian, because Jesus has been sacrificed in your name.

An examination of family pedigrees revealed that gay men had more homosexual male relatives through maternal than through paternal lineages, suggesting a linkage to the X chromosome. Dean Hamer24 found such an association at region Xq28. If male sexual orientation was influenced by a gene on Xq28, then gay brothers should share more than 50% of their alleles at this region, whereas their heterosexual brothers should share less than 50% of their alleles. In the absence of such an association, then both types of brothers should display 50% allele sharing. An analysis of 40 pairs of gay brothers and found that they shared 82% of their alleles in the Xq28 region, which was much greater than the 50% allele sharing that would be expected by chance.Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I think all people should have the right to be gay if they so wish. they have to live with what they chose no one else. so why is it such a big problem? people always say "why and when did you decide to be gay?" and im just like "why and when did you decide to be straight?" and they say they were born that way but if your gay and you tell them you were born they way they will argue and disagree to the fullest. just because someone likes the same sex doesn't they are different they eat sleep bath and talk just the same as you. they aren't a freak species

Hello libertarian. I look forward to this debate. Let's start with the rebuttals: Gays do not have a choice to be gay and it is perfectly natural. Homosexuality is found in animals and in societies that are completely isolated. -Wow and you're accusing me of biased sources. Let's start with the animal myth. This link is from NARTH. It is a non-Christian center that researches homosexuality. It has evidence so don't accuse me of biased sources. http://www.narth.com... As for the societies this has nothing to do with anything. Stealing occurs, murder occurs, lying occurs, as well as love, kindness, and morals. This fails to prove a gay gene. Your link simply told me what I should believe. It didn't give evidence on why I should believe it or how they arrived at that conclusion. I have 2 questions regarding this. 1.If there is a gay gene how come 99% of gays are born in heterosexual homes with heterosexual parents? If it's not a choice how can 2 straight parents produce a gay child? It simply makes no sense. 2.What about bisexuals? What gene do they have? If it's a time of questioning (which contradicts the theory of sexuality before the age of 5) how come so many carry that into adulthood? It makes no sense. Gays can take care of kids just as well, if not better, than heterosexuals. -This comment actually offended me. First off, you posted the same link twice. It really didn't have a lot to say on the issue. Second, it's one thing to say they can take care of kids just as well as heterosexuals (which I agree is probably true although I think a mother and a father in a good relationship are the best type of parents.) But it's another to say "if not better." So you're saying gays are better than straights. You demand equality but in this instance you demand you're better than us! We are people and we are equal! You CAN'T prove to me gays are better parents than straights! This is just a stupid statement I STRONGLY disagree with. More couples means more families, which is great for society. -First I would like to argue that any couple isn't good for society unless they are in an equal loving relationship. I have seen sites of gay marriage statistics saying it's "too early to tell" about the divorce and affair rates of gay marriage. However here is one that does say. It is not a neutral site but then again what is. Even Wikipedia can't achieve neutrality. This site takes surveys from all over the media and posts them on their site about gay marriage. http://www.pureloveclub.com... The definition of marriage can change. It'll deal. There is such a thing as Old English. One word can deal with the change. -But should it change? It's not necessarily the definition that's important it's the meaning. Should the meaning change? If you change the meaning of marriage you could change the meaning of anything to fit your standards. This is sometimes what the liberals do to the Bible. (Sorry liberals but it's the truth.) And if you include homosexuals with the definition of marriage why stop? Why not include dogs, or plants, or chairs? When does it stop? There are actually people out there who agree with animal marriage. Think I'm crazy? http://www.marryyourpet.com... http://cowtwngrl.blogspot.com... http://www.canadafreepress.com... The government should not try to stop love. It is immoral. - You're right! They shouldn't stop love. However I have some points: 1.It is possible to love a person outside of marriage. Marriage is not necessary for love. 2.Gays tend to have high levels of promiscuity. Look at these statistics. Again, NARTH asked gays on the street what their levels of promiscuity were. This is what they said. http://www.narth.com... Is this morality to you? 3.Often being gay is a cry out for a relationship with the same-sex they never had with their parent. This is not love it is lust. Gays will be able to visit their sick partners in the hospital. -From here on it seems you've simply run out of points. If the patient requests for you to see him/her then you don't have to be a family member or be married to the person to see the person. This is not a good reason to legalize gay marriage. Gays will be able to automatically inherit money from their spouses. -If you're mentioned in their will you will receive money. I don't see what point you're making. If they love you enough for you to receive money from them, there should be no problem. There will be less orphans. Gays are statistically more likely to adopt special needs children. -But will simply adopting them make their lives easier? http://www.narth.com... Your argument is that gay marriage should be legalized. Single parents can adopt kids. This fails to prove why gay marriage should be legalized. I have some points: 1.I find that a man and a woman in an equal loving relationship are the best parents to have. I believe this because it has been this way for centuries producing many loving families, showing the male and female role in society, and producing children. Having single parents or gay parents only confuses this process. While not all marriages result in families, families most of the time result from a marriage. A marriage binds the parents together, which is the ideal condition for raising children. Marriage is important because raising strong kids in strong families is important. 2.So, now the big question is who has the right to marry whom. Should anybody be allowed to marry anybody and raise a family? Anybody, meaning heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, incestual couples, polygamists, and adult-child pairs. Yes, all of these exist, so it would be unfair to leave one out. Obviously, all of these groups should not be allowed to marry. Most people in the world should agree on that. One has to figure out which group is helping society the most, similar to how when you cook something, you strive to use only the best ingredients. Using ingredients that are not as good would diminish the quality of the food. A heterosexual couple can produce healthy children on their own. A homosexual couple, a incestual couple, and adult-child pair would either produce no children, or run a very high risk of producing a mentally retarded child. If you argue that they can have healthy children in another way, such as through adoption, a surrogate mother, or third-party sperm, you better be arguing that all three couples are allowed to obtain children by those means, or that would be discrimination. What about polygamy? Polygamists can produce healthy children just like heterosexual couples. However, the one spouse has to split their time between all the different spouses, often causing jealousy and confusion. So clearly, even though not all heterosexual couples produce children, they are the couple that has the best chance of producing new healthy children and raising them strong for a new generation. Allowing any other type of marriage would not promote this goal. 3.How come there are many gays who do not support gay marriage? It's so obvious that you think they have committed relationships so how can anyone not support it? 4.How could there have been "gay societies" when they would just die out? This further contradicts the gay gene theory. 5.Explain why there are ex-gays. 6.Explain how the gay gene is possible. 7.Explain why a gay gene has never been found when there's so much "evidence" to support it. 8.Do bisexuals, transgender, pedophiles, and bestiality people have a gene? If not, why?

Before I begin, I want to say I am fiercely PRO-LGBT AND HUMAN RIGHTS. Because of this I am going to ignore your first argument, and other arguments except for the second because that does not seem to go into the terms of being gay is NOT bad sort of thing. What is choice ? Choice - an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities When I was young and navive, I want to be left-handed because I was convinced that left-handed people were smarter (which is obviously not true in all cases). But, I was born right-handed, however that doesn't mean I don't have a choice. So, even though I was right-handed doesn't mean I couldn't be left-handed. Because really wanted to be left-handed. But couldn't sadly speaking. I could always fake it untiI make it. Applying, my brief anecdote to my own sexual orientation, I could want to homosexual and I could fool myself into thinking, I am gay, but I wouldn't be gay. Because I simply wasn't born that way. However that doesn't mean I don't have a choice in the matter. Just like people that don't have a choice in their sex, but do have a choice in their gender identity. We all have a choice in what we could be and who we are. This is called freedom. Or If you are simply implying that choice is the freedom to choose what we want to be or be who we are, then that's for the next round. Please clarify and be as specific as you can. I do so love a good round of wits! 😀😀😀

Why society should discourage the homosexual lifestyle and agenda 1. Physical Incompatibility A gay couple can never produce a child **by design**, they lack the ability to reproduce with each other. From a religious perspective, if God didn't design the parts to fit, then He must not have meant for those parts to fit. Who are we to argue with God's design (some may say then why did God make them that way, wait till you read my argument below on this before you respond to this). From an evolutionary perspective, if there was an advantage to homosexual reproduction over sexual reproduction, we'll eventually all become bisexuals and hermaphrodites eventually. In addition, from a biological point of view, individuals with severe genetic disorders either die at birth or at a young age or are sterile when they reach reproduction age, this is to prevent genetic defects from spreading further into the population. Now that is not to say I believe in the "gay gene" (which I'll debate later below), but supposing that genetics predispositions a person towards a certain sexual orientation, this lifestyle was not meant to continue its line. So it's against God's design, it's against nature. Before someone mentions it, I might as well argue the counter argument that heterosexual couples that are incapable of having children should not be allowed together. To refute this counter example is easy, a hetrosexual couple who cannot reproduce is a result of some biological defect, which is separate from design. They are designed to reproduce, but are unable to for some medical reason. bottomline: Defect versus against design. 2. It's not a choice to having homosexual feelings, it is a choice to act upon them. Everyone has all sorts of feelings throughout their lives, sometimes we get irritated at someone, sometimes we lose our temper, sometimes we're happy, sometimes we're sad, it's not something that we can readily change. It's how we feel. But if I get angry and use that rage to kill someone, then I'm acting upon a feeling, and it is that act that is a choice. There are always things we can do to control how we feel. Homoesexual feelings are not much different. It is a completely incorrect statement to say that homosexuality is not a choice, because in order to make that statement, then from a logic point of view, there cannot be a single person in the history of mankind that has ever changed their sexual orientation. But we know this is not true, people have changed their sexual orientation. Examples http://www.springerlink.com... http://www.cbn.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... there are more if you just google. So how far this argument goes, I can tell you for certain that it at the very least disproves the statemnet that sexual orientation can't be changed and lays that one to rest because all you need is one counter example to disprove a blanket statement like that. 3. It's not God's design Most people always argue that if God didn't want individuals to live the homosexual lifestyle, then why make them that way. To tackle the problem with this statement, I'll take the position from a Christian point of view. According to biblical teachings, yes, God made man and woman, BUT, the couple sinned and sin entered into their being which made man's sense of morality tipsy turby. So it is not accurate to say that homosexuals are made by God, that's like saying God made a murderer, a pedophile...etc. These we agree are perverted behaviors, homosexual behavior is no different. It is a deviation from the standard, commonly accepted practice for sexual relations. And yet we don't do anything to help homosexual individuals overcome their addictions. Saying that homosexuality is okay is depriving such individuals from getting the right wires reconnected again from a mis-writing due to sin. Another analogy, if we made a computer software to behave a certain way, then a virus infects it and causes it to behave differently. Do we say that the software is supposed to behave like that? Of course not, we say it's the virus causing it to behave that way and that it's not operating within its intended purpose Let's start with three arguments for now, we'll add more as we move along. Bottom line: - not their fault to have homosexual feelings - it's a choice to act upon those feelings - we have a responsiblity as a society to determine the cause of homosexuality so we can offer freedom to those who wish to leave the homosexual lifestyle

My argument is that its bad to be gay. Its WRONG to be gay because its a perversion of the God created natural order, but that debate is for another day. I'm here today to debate why its BAD. The first reason its bad is because its statistically proven that homosexual men live around 20 years shorter than straight men. Besides that, both anal and oral sex can cause serious viruses including genital warts, gonorrhea and HIV to name a few. As well as the fact that homosexuals are 2-6 times more likely to attempt suicide, with 50% saying they've attempted it twice. Some say they're depressed from discrimination, but with all these acceptance movements that hard to believe. I would just like to make it clear now that I am not anti-homosexuals, just anti-homosexuality. I don't want to force them to become straight, I just want them to know the side-effects of a homosexual lifestyle. That's all.

Part of my point is that: you are talking about "gender" but the concept you seem to mean is "biological sex". Biological Sex determines what set of genitals you have, and certain biological and physical characteristics. "Gender Identity" is what gender you assign to yourself. Sex cannot be changed, but gender can be. To answer your question about pedophiles using this as an exception, yes, they will. But any one thing cannot stop them, and I have seen no reported cases of this kind of thing happening. Also, this is what has led to the rise in popularity of genderless, individual washrooms. In any washroom, there is still a risk of pedophilia, by gay men, or gay women.

For some reason, my opponet did not post their argument within the allotted time. To be fair, There is some information out there that try to rebuke what I've listed. The only thing that you have to is do a search on Google for it. You can also find some websites where other people who answer what the people who try to change God's word on the subject. For me, The Bible is very clear on this subject. Granted, I've not done a very indepth study of this but I do not see a reason to sense I am not gay and this does not affect me and because the Bible is very clear on this.