Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Homosexuality is not determined at birth but is a psychological condition, often triggered by childhood sexual abuse.

In the course of this discussion, I have aimed to let the voices of homosexuals speak for themselves, rather than speak on their behalf. The undercover video I shared did just that, offering a platform for homosexuals to express their thoughts and experiences candidly, without feeling the need to be guarded. If you haven’t watched it yet, I encourage you to do so. It’s worth revisiting the link: https://www.youtube.com...

In the video, simple questions were posed to a diverse group of homosexuals in a non-confrontational setting, similar to any gathering at a gay bar on a weekend. There's no reason to believe that the individuals featured are unique in their experiences. It's plausible that their reactions and responses are representative of the wider homosexual community.

Upon viewing the video for research purposes, it became evident that the majority of the individuals had been victims of child molestation and rape between the ages of 2 and 12. Many recounted early sexual experiences with adult males. Interestingly, some mentioned that before these violations, they did not consider themselves attracted to men. They clearly stated that their psychological development was influenced by the abuse.

Naturally, victims of abuse might have mixed feelings about their abusers. Despite the passage of time since their traumatic experiences, the bitterness and anger in their recollections are palpable. If homosexuality were truly innate, why would sexual molestation often act as a catalyst for its expression? Can we dismiss the impact of early molestation on a child’s overall and sexual psyche?

While it’s challenging to determine the exact percentage of homosexuals who were molested by an older male as a child, the data we have suggests a significant connection. According to research by Drs. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse, "Experience of sexual abuse as a child, in other words, more than tripled the likelihood of later reporting homosexual orientation." They further noted that "Other studies have reported the same trend."

In 1995, Dr. Thomas Schmidt, author of Straight and Narrow, cited studies revealing high rates of sexual abuse in homosexual and bisexual men. He observed that although less than 4% of boys are molested by men, the rate among homosexual or bisexual men was nearly ten times higher (35%). It’s also noteworthy that 75% of homosexual men report their first homosexual experience before the age of sixteen, compared to 22% of heterosexual men reporting their first heterosexual

My opponent states that being gay/lesbian is predetermined based on things such as finger length. So, if this is true, females who have male like fingers and males who have different fingers would have to be considered gay or lesbian? This is just as irrational as gays claiming they don't have the same human rights. Is it morally correct for one to feel gay or lesbian because of their finger size? Must they make this choice? 3.5% of America is gay according to a UCLA study. According to a recent survey 83% of Americans claim to be a Christian. You can not defy the fact that a majority of Christians are against gay marriage. Why do you think gay marriage is still illegal in most states? Should the government appeal to 3.5%, or 83%? Marriage is originated between a man and a woman. I am not arguing that Christianity is correct. I am arguing that the modern marriage is from Christianity which is suppose to be between a man and a woman. Gays have a civil union. Now, is it morally correct that civil unions do not have the same right as marriages? No, a civil union should have the same rights as a marriage. That is not what this debate is about though, it is about if gays are part of the definition of marriage, which they are not and shouldn't be a part of. Should a kid at age 7 have to decide to marry a male or female? Bringing up if God exists or not is a totally different discussion and is irrelevant. I am not a Christian but I do know what marriage is based from and that a majority of America is Christian. Telling gay couples that they do not deserve to be married does imply that there is something filthy and wrong about a gay couple. A "traditional, Christian marriage" IS what a marriage is based off today. Like it or not, that is what marriage is. If you want to change that, debate that in a different section. Telling gay couples they can not marry is similar to telling a black man they can not be white. Does that mean they are filthy and wrong? No, it means they are different. Black people have rights now, so can gays. I promote that. But, black people do not consider themselves white. Black people consider themselves people who deserve the same rights Whites do. Why can't gays and straight people consider themselves to be couples in love who deserve the same right, just as black and whites do now? Please explain to me why it is required that you need to be considered "married" to be equal. http://www.christianpost.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Pro's argument is a clear non sequitur. It is not clear that God creates homosexuals as homosexuals. If someone is born gay, it does not follow that God made them that way. There are also pedophiles and kleptomaniacs, which are clearly sinful behaviors, but God did not make them that way. However, even if we assume he does, it does not follow from this that homosexuals have the right to marry someone of the same sex. Premise 2: I accept that God is fair. However, we have to have a correct idea of what fairness is. Fairness is not giving someone everything they want. God clearly considers marriage to be between a man and a woman (Gen. 2:18-26; Mark 10:2-9). If marriage is only between a man and a woman, then it would not be unfair to deny homosexuals the freedom to marry someone of the same sex. It would only be unfair to forbid them the institute of marriage based on being homosexual -- in other words, to deny them the right to marry someone of the opposite sex based on their being homosexual. Premise 3: Here, Pro is confusing the orientation with the action. No one is evil for being homosexual, and being homosexual is not a sin, based on the Bible. Committing a homosexual act is a sin, but being homosexual is not. So Pro's appeal to the Problem of Evil fails. Premise 4: I won't challenge this premise because even if I accept it, Pro's argument is still a non sequitur. However, considering it a predisposition means there could be any number of reasons, including nurture, that causes it. It does not necessarily mean they were genetically predisposed from birth. Premise 5: This premise I will challenge. Pro certainly hasn't proven it, so I will wait for his evidence. To quickly recap: Pro's argument is a non sequitur because even if God creates homosexuals qua homosexual, it does not follow that homosexuals would have a right to marry someone of the same sex. Additionally, Pro's third and fifth premises are unsupported, so his argument fails on those grounds, as well.

In the first half of the debate my opponent claimed: Homosexuality is a choice. Likened drinking milk or juice. Civil Union is the state's oppressive agenda to keep gays from marriage. In the second half of the debate my opponent claimed: Homosexuality is not a choice. Civil Union is the result of the Gay right's movement. My opponent is confusing the debate, jumping from one root argument to the next. What is the voter supposed to understand? Is homosexuality a choice (like a drink preference), or is it rooted in childhood development? Is Civil Union the brainchild of an oppressive Government or was it created, pushed and maintained by the Gay rights movement? I do not wish to sound condescending (I really do not), but my opponent has absolutely no idea where the roots of homosexuality lie, or why civil union exists. I find that strange, since she confessed herself to be gay. I find that a true, self-identified homosexual has decades of experience, reflection and understanding to fall back on. The gay rights debate is often clouded by the "flavor of the week" homosexuals that call themselves lesbians after listening to Katy Perry's "I kissed a Girl and I liked it. "I made several points throughout this debate: Homosexuality is not synonymous with the race struggle. Homosexuals are free to vote and often carry the majority. Homosexuals have preferable alternative to marriage, which would allow them to live at peace with a conservative majority that desires to keep marriage an institution of the heterosexual family. The gay rights movement designed civil union as the fair alternative. It was they who created this compromise. Homosexuality is generally not a choice and can be traced to childhood development. Many couples (gay or straight) are abandoning the ancient matrimony and embracing civil union as the new standard for marriage. Restrictions already exist for marriage (You can't marry relatives, other married people, etc. ). Marriage has been heterosexual for all of recorded history, there is no crime in maintaining a tradition and protecting with laws, as long as a fair alternative exists. We live in a democracy and the voting majority has decided to protect marriage from changing. As "oppressive" as this might sounds, it is fair. The country voted. It would only be oppressive if the people couldn't vote on the issue, or if homosexuals only where barred from voting. It's simply not the case. My opponent carried the burden of proof. I have answered all of her claims and provided sufficient sources to back my arguments. I have broken my opponent's root arguments that civil union is a state created oppression and that homosexuality is a free choice.

Gay people can't choose if they are gay or straight. They are just like you and me except they like the same sex. Hey, by the way where did you here a marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between to people who love each other, whether that be a boy and a boy, a girl and a girl, or a boy or a girl. We are all the same.

I believe that they are equal no matter what my parents think. They are humans to they were born the way we were, they breath the same air. They just knew what they wanted and who they were and are able to except more things. To be honest some of my friends are gay even my best friend is. It doesn't phase me or make me dis her. She is actually the easiest person to talk to because she is open to new ideas and she is so much more understanding when no one else is.

See, you only shot yourself in the foot again. It is very clear that you base your argument under the basis of your emotions rather than the facts that you so attempt to provide to supplement your argument. James Madison would of had a fit with you if he ever saw your argument so ridiculed as you have made it with just your sentiments. For example, you stated: "Homosexuality can be related towards the lack of a parent-child relationship. CSNews reported a story with a homosexual [/child stating/] "He describes experiencing a great deal of sexual confusion due to the lack of a father figure in his life. He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager." And I replied: "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." And your response was: "No, the person in this example was not a child. How do you read "He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager" and think I am talking about a kid. To be fair on my end I did say "story of a child" but what I meant was his experience as a kid." Last I checked, a child is a teenager. Now, your argument about neglected children becoming homosexual because of lack of a parent-child relationship is complete fallacy. There are many, /many/ people whom have suffered child abuse and are heterosexual; to generalize that homosexuals are homosexual because of their mommy/daddy disputes is completely irrational. And while the study I quoted was of fish, which I am glad you caught, it outlines the very possibility that homosexuality can very much be genetic in other animals as well. I did not mention your twin study due to the fact that you did not source it, especially with your reasoning being due to your religious discriminatory values. It's a waste of my time to, especially when there are several twin studies that show one child becoming heterosexual and the other becoming homosexual due to genetic means. One of them is from "N. Kenneth Sandnabba, Nicole Harlaar, Markus Varjonen, Katarina Alanko, and Bettina von der Pahlen... They state; "We investigated the potential to engage in homosexual behavior in 6001 female and 3152 male twins and their siblings finding that 32.8% of the men and 65.4% of the women reported such potential (p < 0.001). 91.5% of these men and 98.3% of these women reported no overt homosexual behavior during the preceding 12 months. The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior." If you cannot control your emotions, I suggest you waste away the following rounds and I will very happily do the same. We will let the voters decide whom is right and whom is not.

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.

However, this book is the most historically rooted book and has more proof going for it than any other historical book today. Also if homosexuals are meant to be, then how come there is no way to sexually reproduce with the same gender in men's cases or in women's cases you have to go through a process in a lab? The easy solution is because it is not meant to be. Also thank you for the links, I did not know about that before.

Thank you for your opening gambit. You said; "An evolutionary basis or incentive for homosexuality to exist is not necessary for it to be (at least partly) biological in nature." While that may be technically true, it does not prove or show that homosexuality is biological or genetically driven. And that's the crux of the debate here, is there any empirical evidence that homosexuality is biological or genetic in origin? Is there a 'gay gene'? Can the difference between a homosexual and heterosexual be measured by differences in the brain? I don't believe that there is any compelling evidence to support that it's rooted in the genetic or the biological. If there is such evidence I have yet to see it. You said; "There is a direct link between smoking/drinking and fatal conditions . Pro has provided no such evidence for a direct link between homosexual activity and higher death rates..." But that is simply not true. You've already conceded that on average the homosexual man will live at least 20years less than the heterosexual man. If it's not his homosexual activity that's the cause of this shortened life span, then what is it? Let's look at this way. If a man with homosexual thoughts never followed through on them and abstained, I would suggest very strongly that this man's lifespan would not be reduced in the way that a man with an active homosexual lifestyle will be. It's following through on the thoughts that ultimately causes the reduced average life span. Not merely the sexual activity but the far greater predisposition for drug use, the fact that one in five homosexuals who are active have HIV(and many not aware), the greater predisposition to unprotected sex, the greater predisposition to promiscuity. You said; Another distortion. Pro's link in support of this only found that to be the case in "about half of all couples" - not "almost all". It's important to note here that this is not 'another distortion' since there have been no distortions so far. At least half of homosexuals that are married concede that their marriage is entirely 'open'. That's a pretty damning % in itself, and I would suggest to you that the same % would not be reflected in heterosexual marriage. While there may be 'open' marriages among heterosexuals, I would challenge you to show us any conclusive evidence that demonstrates that the ratio is even close to half. Moreover, it is not exactly a leap of faith to propose that if around 50% of married homosexuals conceded that their marriage is open that there will be others among those asked who would not admit it. Even at 50% it demonstrates what I stated - that the homosexual life does not lend itself well to a committed relationship between two people . You said; "The validity (or lack thereof) of this argument is of absolutely no relevance to the overall debate. Pro's position is that homosexuality is only a psychological condition, and not biological - not whether or not it is/should be classified as a mental disorder/health issue. Absolutely no data has been provided to support Pro's assertion that these behaviours are caused by homosexuality itself. It's also worth mentioning that a population having higher rates of those particular behaviours isn't necessarily indicative of a mental disorder - this is commonly found amongst several populations which are definitely not collective sufferers of mental disorders (black Americans, for example)." The first paragraph of what you've written is a clear contradiction in terms. You are correct in that my position is that homosexuality is rooted in the psychological and not the biological or genetic. Thus far you have not proven my case to be wrong. You have also not shown that homosexuality is biologically driven. It would follow that if its a psychological condition then it's by very definition it would be a mental disorder/health issue. When the psychological condition of homosexuality is actualised and followed through on, it leads one into a World of higher risk of drug dependency and sexual behaviours that clearly and demonstrably are a health issue(physically), caused by them following through on their psychological issue(homosexual ideation).

Thank you. I am glad that we agree that BEING GAY IS NOT MORAL or immoral. Being gay is being gay. With that said you did make one point that I will expand on but we both know is not essential to the question of "moral." My friend in your round two argument you said that" "Okay your argument is full of amazing points. The only part i disagree with is when you told me it's a choice. for you it may have been. but it isn't for everybody." BUT I SAY OBJECTION. I never disclosed my own view on whether being gay was a choice or not. WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID WAS: "My friend - you claimed "i believe that being gay is moral because it isn't a choice." OBJECTION. When a subject lacks a choice it is not de facto "moral." Even in moral determinings - lacking a choice may be a modification for even being moral or accountable. My point is this does not prove that being gay is moral. Being gay is being gay." TO THAT I HOLD TRUE! WHY? Because it is, in fact, true. Whether or not you had a choice in being gay is not relevant. If it is not a choice then it is not a moral dilemma. IF YOU'RE BEING GAY WASN'T A CHOICE THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU MORAL or IMMORAL. IT MAKES YOU GAY. For me, being a disclosed gay man, I have no opinion on whether or not I made a choice to be gay or if I was just gay by genetics or nature or whatever you call it. To me it doesn't really matter. HOWEVER - lets say, for arguments sake, that being gay WAS A CHOICE.... the only moral agent is the BARE NAKED INDIVIDUAL REGARDLESS OF IDENTITY and his actions. I CONCLUDE BY SAYING THIS: If I am gay beyond my choosing THEN I ALSO CHOOSE TO BE GAY. Does that make me moral or immoral? NO! Identification and subsequent action are only mine to determine for myself. If someone else has something to say then they should have their say. AGAIN I ASK ANYONE reading this and my esteemed opponent to not accept this topic as true on the basis of what has been covered. We are who we are. All of us.


Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Sexuality is not a matter of choice. "You've mentioned that it's established at birth, but you also note that it takes some time for one to start understanding their identity." This is a rather illogical assertion. Typically, one doesn't instantly recognize their sexuality. It's determined from the moment of birth, but discovering it can be a gradual process. I appreciate the discussion; it's been an interesting exchange.

First off I do not hate homosexuals in anyway shape or form so please if I come off gay bashing im not trying to, thanks. :) First defining some things When my opponent says valid or validity of homosexuality I will define that as valid under the law or marriage. Meaning is it valid in the law or marriage process. As well I will define wrong as to find logical fault with. Case: 1. Legally homosexual marriage has great potential for abuse, like the movie I now pronounce you chuck and larry. People could use homosexual marriage only for beneficial gain under the law. marriage before the law was a religious thing, most religions don't allow homosexuality. So when the original idea of marriage was put into law homosexual marriage was not allow because it was an adopted religious law put into the law. 2. Logically homosexuality is wrong, seeing how homosexuals without the help of technology they could never bare children of their own, and only adoption is the only option. As well its natural for creatures to be heterosexual. Now some might argue that some animals behave in homosexual activity, this does not mean they are completely homosexual. As well as the fact that the parts fit. The male reproductive system is specifically under nature made for the female reproductive system. As well as your rectum is not meant for sex be the digestive system, anal sex is a un natural act of sex as well as oral. Yes I know i'll get letters. 3. Again marriage before the law was a religious thing, most religions don't allow homosexuality. Therefore religiously homosexuality is not a valid practice. So in conclusion theres no validity in the Law,Nature, and religion.

So I really don't have anything to say in this round. I said what I had to say in the previous rounds. I do want to provide some inspirational gay marriage quotes. You don't have to read them if you don't want to. I just want to end this debate on a positive note. "This is my doctrine: Give every other human being every right you claim for yourself. " R13; Robert G. Ingersoll, The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child "So, let me get this straight-- You want me to stop being a lesbian and being attracted to women because it is a 'sin'? Last time I checked, when you lie you are sinning. Sure, I could tell you I am no longer a lesbian or that I am no longer attracted to women and am straight, or I could even tell you the moon is made of cheese. I could tell you many things, but the moon will still not be made of cheese, and I will still not be attracted to men. I could tell you a lie in order to placate you, but isn"t the truth supposed to set me free? I choose truth over lies any day of the week. " R13; Cristina Marrero "We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. " R13; John E Lewis Some time ago there was a story of a mother who disowned her son for being gay. Her father found out and wrote this letter: Dear Christine, I"m disappointed in you as a daughter. You're correct that we have a "shame in the family," but mistaken about what it is. Kicking Chad out of your home simply because he told you he was gay is the real "abomination" here. A parent disowning her child is what goes "against nature. " The only intelligent thing I heard you saying in all this was that "you didn"t raise your son to be gay. " Of course you didn"t. He was born this way and didn't choose it any more than he being left-handed. You however, have made a choice of being hurtful, narrow-minded, and backward. So, while we are in the business of disowning our children, I think I'll take this moment to say goodbye to you. I now have a fabulous (as the gays put it) grandson to raise, and I don"t have time for heart-less B-word of a daughter. If you find your heart, give us a call. " Dad . http://www.newsmax.com...

Buy it's NOT ok to be gay, and this is the heart of the matter. The 20 year-old male who "comes-out" dramatically increases chances of getting HIV. The CDC tells us 75% of all new HIV cases are gay males. How can you possibly say "it's ok to be gay" with stats like that staring you in the face? First off, HIV happens when you engage in risky sexual behavior. One can avoid HIV by being safe gay or not. Also, taking the change of getting AIDS is worth the love you find in a relationship with someone you are attracted to. If there was a 1 in 20 chance that I would get AIDS from a relationship with a woman, I would still do it because I would never find satisfaction with a man and celibacy is no way to life. The same goes for gays. Also a minority of gays have HIV. Your "born this way" theory was discredited ages ago. The American Psychological Association doesn't support it and never has. And your "Gays are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and cannot choose to be attracted differently" is yet more LGBT junk science not supported by a scintilla of evidence. I've read the scientific literature. You clearly haven't. No sources: check. No evidence: check. Only claims: check. I already showed that sexual attraction is not chosen. If it was, then you could choose to like someone of the same sex if you are strait. Gays are sexually attracted to the same sex by their own self-report. If you doubt me, then go ask a gay person. Ask him if he is sexually attracted to women. He will likely say no. Take a look at this link below. It has stories of gays and their description of their attraction. http://www.experienceproject.com... Here is one such story: I always felt like I was different. When all the other boys started noticing girls I was still playing my video games - I just didn't know what was so special about them. As the time went on I realized that the ones I like aren't girls - but boys. I though at first that it was just a phase, that perhaps every boy feels like that at one time. I even tried to get myself to like girls. All to no avail. I admitted it to myself when I was 16. I knew about then that what I feel like can't be changed - that it's there to stay forever. And I got scared. In my country being gay is not only sin, if you're gay you're considered sub-human. No possible penance. I was once told that the only way to "heal" a homosexual is with a bullet through the head. So that's why I'm hiding it. No one would understand. Not my family or people I go to school with. I dread what would happen if anyone found out. It is really revolting how some of us treat people who are different like trash just because they are different. Gays are actually more miserable married than unmarried. Most gays want nothing to do with same-sex. In Massachusetts 10 years after same sex marriage less than 5% of gay males are married. Why do you think that is? What do these gay males know you don't? Where is the source that gays are more miserable married than unmarried? Where is the source that says that only 5% marry? Even if only a few of them marry at least they are being benefited. I have a question for you. If only 5% of people took advantage of their right to bear arms would you be fine with a gun ban for that reason alone? In the US 2% of hetero couples get divorced while 1.1% of gay couples get divorced annually (1). Well so much for the misery thing. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org...

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! 😀😀😀

1. Are you a homosexual? No. 2. Do the knights in the middle ages have a connection with beavers and No. 3. Do you follow the law? No. 4. Do you believe the Bible and its inerrancy? No. 5. Do you believe that every human being should have equal rights? Yes. 6. Is killing another person ever morally acceptable? Yes. 7. Will you do anything to save your family and loved ones from harm? No. 8. Does this Round 1 post of mine have a total of 574 characters? (Excluding spaces) No. 9. Are semantics appropriate for this debate? Yes. 10. Will you contradict yourself in this debate? No.

What is normal? I f by normal you mean antural, Then the question isn't can homosexuals reproduce, Thats not why gays do it. Another question to determine whether it is "normal" is to investigate whether and to what extent it occur in nature? Homosexuality pre dates the bible so its been around since day one. Are there gay animals, Do homosexual encounters occur in the world of the animals? No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, With the exception of species that never have sex at all, Such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, A part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, Truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.

If being gay was a natural process then why can't gay people have kids and why aren't other animals gay. If it is natural surely we wouldn't be the only species. By the way, I'm paying devils advocate here.

Rebuttal 1. My opponent agrees his anecdotal evidence is weak, but keeps claiming that they cannot have accidental children. I agree, unless a lesbian is raped she cannot have an accidental child. But this point is mostly irrelevant. Marriage itself cures many of these problems amongst heterosexuals, decreasing the amount of abuse and such [1]. Now, my opponent and I agree: stability is best for children. Research shows for heterosexuals the increased stability is induced through marriage. But an easy rebuttal could be “it would help gays too”… But would it? Overall, probably not. Indeed, only 8% of homosexuals choose to marry [2]. So assuming all of the benefits get transferred to homosexuals, the overall benefit to the homosexual community is minimal at best. Furthermore, when studying same-sex couples we see stability really does not exist in [many] same sex households, and the gay divorce rate is much higher compared to heterosexual couples [3]. Even though they don’t have accidental children, if their overall outcome is still worse his rebuttal hinging on that one point is futile. Indeed, I have presented evidence need both mothers and fathers to develop properly, and recent studies indicate children raised in homosexual households are less adjusted in school. The study writes “Children in traditional families (i.e., married,2 biological parents) tend to do better than their peers in nontraditional families.” The article then talks about studies claiming there to be more difference, criticizes them, and notes later that the non-stability of non-homosexual couples cause much of the problems amongst their children [4]. Now, gays don’t force their sexuality, that’s absurd! But they are more open about their sexuality and do encourage their children to explore other things (i.e. boys play with Barbie’s, girls with trucks) [5]. And most theories, as described in Stacey and Biblarz 2001, indicate any valid sexual theory means it is almost inevitable children raised by homosexuals are more likely to become homosexuals. Since my opponent has admitted it does have an influence, he loses another large point under this issue. 2. I am making this point the genetic point – skipping to three looks weird. My opponent misinterprets my argument. I am not saying only three percent of homosexuals change, but that three percent of heterosexuals are former homosexuals. That is a massive percentage, since heterosexuals identify as 85-90% of the population in most polls. Actually, most homosexuals change preference (no, this is not a “choice” issue. This is an “environmental” issue – it is not a “choice”, but it is changeable). Most heterosexuals stay heterosexual, but 98% of the overall population become more heterosexual (the number is high because many people are bisexual in the study cited; one on 16-17 year olds). In a longer 5 year study, almost all heterosexuals stay heterosexual, but almost all of the homosexuals move towards full heterosexuality, and another large portion moves to bisexuality. Almost all of the bisexuals became more heterosexual as well [6]. The fact that homosexuality is fluid refutes this point hands down. Now, my opponent really said the APA holds no position? Well the first sentence they admit their blatant bias “the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations.”[7] But the source also admits “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.” This is a large flip flop: in the 90s they were certain it was genetic [8]. The fact pro-gay organizations are actually neutral on the issue, a major flip flop, indicates a change in evidence, and a large one. My opponent attempts to claim homosexuality is natural, but the data simply refutes that conclusion. Defense 1. My opponent claims allowing homosexuals will increase revenue and spending. But this is very false. Homosexuals already can adopt, and the many benefits given to homosexual couples will increase overall spending. And the fact few homosexuals actually marry [2], even if my opponents benefits were true my statistic indicates any possible benefit is, well, very miniscule. But the benefits he cites are likely exaggerated. 2. I never said gays want elevated social status; this is a straw man and a red herring. My opponent has still failed to explain why they deserve equality. They may be the same “people”, but they are not the right type of relationship. Those engaging in other obscure relationships are people, the love each other, but they aren’t marriages. A boyfriend and a girlfriend (not obscure – so it is an even better example!) love each other very much. This isn’t a marriage because they do not represent responsible procreation and child rearing. Marriage is an institution which it can discriminate against people for what they do, simply because those relationships are not promoting the government’s interest. 3. As stated, homosexual marriages are rare and unstable. The famous What Is Marriage paper (expanded into a book, now) notes “The value of such a policy—at least for individuals who share benefits to the individuals themselves, like hospital‐visitation and by distinct we. Why create a special legal package for generic partnerships?”[9] 4. The traditional point is also a red-herring. But if defending the conjugal point of view helps society, why should we oppose it? Whether or not traditional marriage is actually traditional is irrelevant. It also depends on how we define such a word. In the US, our marriage laws are based on British Common Law made at the time around the Magna Carta which usually claimed marriage was about procreation and child rearing [10]. And even before that, Medieval Europe held the same value. Even Rome held a conjugal view of marriage! So yes, different cultures have different marriages. The point is mostly irrelevant, since conjugal marriage is a benefit to society. But Western civilization usually holds this view, making it a “tradition”. 1. http://www.heritage.org... 2. http://www.marriagedebate.com... 3. https://same-sex.web.ined.fr... 4. http://www.baylorisr.org... 5. Walter Schumm 2011 Journal of Human Sexuality 6. http://www.mygenes.co.nz... 7. http://www.apa.org... 8. http://www.wnd.com... 9. http://www.harvard-jlpp.com... 10. http://www.marriagedebate.com...

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.

ROUND 4: HOMOSEXUALITY AND MORALITY Provide one"s consensus on homosexuality and whether or not it should be accepted and/or condoned Round 4: HOMOSEXUALITY AND MORALITY As I stated earlier in my argument, I said homosexuality is a choice, but not in the sense that one chooses to be gay. It is something that happens in your childhood and in the environment in which you were raised, so it therefore can be changed. My opponent mentioned this, but even said himself that there is still no evidence to support you are born gay! But let's just ignore that. Let's focus on if it should be accepted or not. NO! I even stated this earlier in my speech. People can just easily say "love is love". What about people who have sexual feelings for animals? My opponent pointed out homosexuality is common in nature. Well, so is different species falling in love with other species, such as the Dzo or Yakow. You might say, "Well humans can't reproduce with other animals". And you'd be right. But neither can homosexuals! And of course, a lot of you will say "well homosexuality can help with the population". We don't NEED homosexuality in order to control the population. Adoption, one child policy, and many other things can solve that. Let's also get into the health of this. According to aids.gov, "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV". And what does HIV lead too? You got it, AIDS. And what comes next? DEATH! So yea, we should totally accept something like that. But what about lesbians? According to womenshealth.gov, "Many studies show that lesbians and bisexual women have a higher body mass index (BMI) than other women" and " Studies suggest that lesbians may store more of their fat in the abdomen (stomach area)". This belly fat increases the risk for heart disease and type 2 diabetes, which again can lead to DEATH! So, a sexual orientation that can lead to health problems and eventually death is something we should just accept? I don't think so. And I'm sure some of you are wondering, "well, if we don't accept homosexuality, how are people who consider themselves that going to live happy?". That is a very good question, but as time goes on, we just need more evidence on the roots of homosexuality in humans, cure it, and reach a conclusion from there. So, in conclusion, homosexuality should NOT be accepted and therefore condoned. My citations will be posted below. I now turn this debate toward my opponent. See you in the final round! http://womenshealth.gov... https://www.aids.gov...


Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Sexual Biology
The human body's sexual anatomy suggests that sexual orientation might not be strictly determined at birth. For instance, anal sex in men stimulates the prostate area, which can create a unique sexual pleasure that may only be achieved through intimate encounters with another man or through similar simulation. Similarly, the clitoris, the most sensitive part of the female genitalia, is not directly stimulated during vaginal intercourse with a man, which might lead to the assumption that sexual activities with another woman could be more effective in stimulating the clitoris and generating sexual pleasure. These biological factors suggest that humans might be naturally inclined towards bisexuality, indicating that sexual orientation could be influenced by a combination of biological and environmental factors rather than being solely predetermined at birth.

"The gay movement is one of civil rights for homosexuals" This is a red herring fallacy and it is irrelevant to my claim. Your claim does not change the fact that the gay movement has been profoundly driven by many pedophiles and sexual predators. " Sexual misconduct is a societal norm". This is a subjective claim. Pedophilia and sexual misconduct are more prevalent among the drivers of the gay movement then any other movement with the exception of the pedophile movement. "In every culture it is different and yes, society said homosexuality was misconduct but that does not mean it morally was" This is a straw man fallacy. I never said homosexuality is sexual misconduct. I said the gay movement, pedophilia and sexual misconduct are inseparable because of the prevalence of pedophiles and sexual predators who are significantly instrumental throughout the history of the gay movement "That same society also said it was misconduct for blacks and whites to marry, a concept most of us have trouble seeing as misconduct, let alone immoral" This is a faulty analogy and a tu Quoque fallacy. It also has nothing to do with pedophilia and sexual misconduct

I think exactly the point is that you point to the bible for your conclusion. But if the bible did not exist, you would have little reason to say most of what you said. Does the bible not say you should love all people and that god is loving of everyone? You sure don't show it. Also, I feel I may have more experience with the bible you claim to go off of than you do. I was in Yeshiva in Jerusalem for eight months studying TORAH aka the OLD testament, aka, the basis of your biblical rules you go off of. The TORAH would not approve of this kind of insulting language you use. It may have parts against homosexuality, but it seems it's because of the risk of homosexual sex. Also, it doesn't seem to say much about being against lesbians. You have also been reported for your word usage since insults are not part of a valid argument. It is very sad to see the bible which is supposed to have GOOD morals turn you and others into people full of hate. Also, unlike you, I have sources that back up my arguments: https://www.york.cuny.edu... https://www.reuters.com... http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu... http://libguides.usc.edu... https://www.theguardian.com... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.livescience.com... https://www.sciencedirect.com...

Ok. I would like to say, That you aren't gay. You just admitted to molesting little children. So, You aren't gay, Though you are a pedophile. And you did admit to that too. But you shouldnt do that cause you can go to jail for it. Its a crime. You can be gay, If you like men. Or Bisexual if you like men and women. But you aren't just gay if you like little boys or girls. So yea sorry mate but yea.

Well, for my last round, I will do my best to answer the questions you have raised... But first let me remind whoever is seeing this debate what objective moral values are: Objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. Is Homosexual natural? The answer to this question depends on how you define natural. If natural means "genetic or biologically determined," then homosexuality is not natural. Decades of scientific research have failed to find a "gay gene" or a sole biological cause for same-sex attraction. The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and even gay researchers all recognize that homosexuality cannot be reduced to biology alone. Instead, they acknowledge that social factors seem to play a key role in the development of homosexuality. No evidence suggests that it's natural for homosexuals to be "born gay." Sometimes natural refers to design. Something is natural if it I functioning the way it was designed to function. But, homosexual behavior isn't natural in this sense, either. It goes against the natural function of the body. Male and female bodies have a "natural" fit because their genes have fashioned their sexual anatomies to complement each other. Their reproductive organs work together harmoniously to produce another human being-a clear indication that natural design favors heterosexual rather than homosexual unions. Some argue that homosexuality is natural in the sense that God created people that way. But there is no reason to believe this. No major religious tradition teaches or affirms that homosexuality is natural or moral. Though some gay advocates deny that the Bible condemns homosexual behavior, they must resort to interpretive gymnastics that distort the clear and obvious meaning of the biblical text. Homosexuality is "natural" in one sense, though. It "occurs in nature" in the sense that some human beings engage in homosexual behavior. Gay advocates argue that if it occurs in nature, then it's morally appropriate. But to conclude that homosexuality is moral simply because it happens with some frequency commits an error in thinking known as the is-ought fallacy. Just because a behavior is occurring in nature doesn't mean it ought to be considered moral. After all, if you accept the natural status-quo as moral, then every behavior seems to pass the morality test. Murder, rape, and theft all "occur in nature." Some animals kill their young or abandon wounded family members. Others cannibalize their mates. These behaviors occur more frequently than homosexuality, yet we wouldn't give blanket approval to them just because they're natural in this sense. Morality is often the opposite of doing what comes naturally, and the ability to overcome natural impulses is one of the things that separate humans from animals. In summary, homosexuality is not a natural behavior if by natural you mean something that fits our anatomy or God's design for sexuality and reproduction. Nazi Germany comparison: Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. http://www.reasonablefaith.org... Most countries have an idea of hat is objectively true. Relativism(Subjective truth) isn't even on the same playing field as Absolute truth. Let me explain: 1. Relativism is the belief that there are no objective, absolute truths. 2. The relativist's position is self-defeating because the relativist is making an absolute truth claim when they say, "all truth is relative. 3. If truth is relative, on hat basis can we judge or condemn the actions of people with whom we disagree? 4. Truth is the correspondent between our beliefs and reality. Relativism denies this. 5. A society not governed by absolute truths(objective truths) would fall apart. For example, imagine a nation where red stop signs didn't absolutely mean "stop" for all people. The fact that murder, rape, child abuse, hate, and theft are all wrong isn't simply due to the fact that it is best for the society for those actions to be wrong. But because we know within our hearts that certain actions are right and certain actions are wrong. Regardless with what a society might say. My Bible helped me with some sources. Haha... And yes, my worldview is from a Christian point of view :) Enjoyed the debate. Thanks :)

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.

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?

Now this round will be all rebuttals. "I would like to point out that, sinners can be repented and granted eternal life, if they believe in Jesus. Will a benevolent god, who understands every action that you take, really send you to hell, based on your sexual orientation?" A sinner is not repenting if they say sorry to God but keep sinning. God says gay marriage is sin, right? So remember this: since God condemns sinfulness, you cannot love God if you practice the sin. I get this off of the Bible. But where else would I get it from? Trust me, God doesn't WANT to send anybody to Hell, but we live in a world of free will and we have a choice to serve Him and repent (correctly), or serve the world and ignore Him. You cannot go to Heaven just because you think homosexuality isn't a sin and you "repented." http://www.scripturessay.com... "...god will forget about that how much of a good person you are, that you devoted your life to Jesus, yet based on your sexual orientation, a benevolent god will forget all of those things?" You are not a "good" person in God's eyes if you are purposefully sinning. You did not devote your life to Jesus if your lifestyle is against what Jesus said. "If you say that gays chose to be gay, why would they exactly chose to be gay?" OK...well I don't think people who come out gay think it's a bad thing themselves. But I ask you then, why would they want to be Christian if they know what the outcome will be? Besides, it's definitely a choice that you get married gay, and that's the main problem here if I'm not mistaken. http://www.thepartyofchoice.com... "If they chose to be gay, how is it immoral? I have a strong feeling that you believe that it is immoral just because a ancient religious book says so?" Yes. But it's not just an ancient book, and I've been stressing this throughout the debate multiple times. I will do it again: the Bible is the Christian's guide to life. Without it, we are making our faith' into a 'blind faith,' and we have no understanding of who/what God is. If we do not trust the Bible than can we truly trust God? Then we must converse about immorality. Here's the thing: if a Christian chooses to be gay, that's immoral in God's eyes and the two lifestyles contradict each-other. This is why you have to decide if you want to be Christian or keep living "gay." As a Christian you believe that God created us, but how'd you learn that? The Bible. And guess what? In the Bible God says that homosexuality is an abomination or detestable sin. It's a trap that keeps coming back to the Bible. Thank you for taking this debate seriously and not getting carried away on other topics! I admire your philosophical attack in most of these subjects. This concludes my behalf for Round 3.

"I would like to say that just because you have same sex parents doesn't mean the opposite-sex ain't around." However, even though the opposite sex isn't around, you are mostly getting interactions with your parents. Therefore, you aren't seeing that sex as often, therefore not absorbing as much of the personality as you should. Grandparents, unless they are living with the child, will at average see the child every 1 or 2 weeks. They will not have teachers until they are about 5-6 years old, so by then, they will have most of their personality (I'm assuming about 50-60%). So they wouldn't be as influenced by teachers as much as they would with their parents. Besides, they only see their teacher for a set amount of time, usually 6-7 hours, for only 5 days a week. With their friends, they won't really absorb personality from there. Little kids are really sexist. They don't realize that they are being sexist, but they are. The two sexes don't mix in the younger grades. So if a girl has a more male personality, she won't be accepted in the female group. She won't be accepted in the male group either, as she is a girl. Most studies have not found the adopted children to be happy. In fact, they are quite the opposite. Children adopted by homosexuals are more prone to being alcoholics, suicidal, people who cut themselves, depression, and being homosexuals themselves. I know you think being homosexual isn't bad, but in the long run, an increase in the homosexual population will be bad for the Earth's population as a whole. If there are more homosexuals, then there will be a decrease in the amount of children being born, and in the long run, that will not be good for the Earth. Now it all comes down to this... If you ever pass away and leave your child parent-less, would you rather have a heterosexual couple adopt your child, or a homosexual couple, in which case your child will be more prone to being alcoholic, suicidal, someone who harms themselves, or depression? Please think about this, voters, and don't let your personal feelings come out when you vote. Vote for whoever you think did better, and what you see the facts support more. Thanks all. And thanks for the great debate, opponent. This debate made me think a lot and do a lot of research as well.

Keep in mind, I do believe that there is some psychology to it as well. However, at present I also do believe that genetics play a factor. The science is there, whether you desire to consider it or not is completely up to you. This was a good debate, nonetheless! I wish we could of carried it out further, but due to an real-life instance I couldn't carry out my part. I look forward to our future quarrels! May the best man win!

My opponent states that being gay/lesbian is predetermined based on things such as finger length. So, if this is true, females who have male like fingers and males who have different fingers would have to be considered gay or lesbian? This is just as irrational as gays claiming they don't have the same human rights. Is it morally correct for one to feel gay or lesbian because of their finger size? Must they make this choice? 3.5% of America is gay according to a UCLA study. According to a recent survey 83% of Americans claim to be a Christian. You can not defy the fact that a majority of Christians are against gay marriage. Why do you think gay marriage is still illegal in most states? Should the government appeal to 3.5%, or 83%? Marriage is originated between a man and a woman. I am not arguing that Christianity is correct. I am arguing that the modern marriage is from Christianity which is suppose to be between a man and a woman. Gays have a civil union. Now, is it morally correct that civil unions do not have the same right as marriages? No, a civil union should have the same rights as a marriage. That is not what this debate is about though, it is about if gays are part of the definition of marriage, which they are not and shouldn't be a part of. Should a kid at age 7 have to decide to marry a male or female? Bringing up if God exists or not is a totally different discussion and is irrelevant. I am not a Christian but I do know what marriage is based from and that a majority of America is Christian. Telling gay couples that they do not deserve to be married does imply that there is something filthy and wrong about a gay couple. A "traditional, Christian marriage" IS what a marriage is based off today. Like it or not, that is what marriage is. If you want to change that, debate that in a different section. Telling gay couples they can not marry is similar to telling a black man they can not be white. Does that mean they are filthy and wrong? No, it means they are different. Black people have rights now, so can gays. I promote that. But, black people do not consider themselves white. Black people consider themselves people who deserve the same rights Whites do. Why can't gays and straight people consider themselves to be couples in love who deserve the same right, just as black and whites do now? Please explain to me why it is required that you need to be considered "married" to be equal. http://www.christianpost.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...


Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Our identity is shaped by our surroundings. The ongoing Nature versus Nurture debate
I concur that both factors are involved, yet I assert that the nurturing aspect has a more significant influence. A child's knowledge is derived exclusively from their experiences. Without parental guidance on etiquette, a child would be oblivious to proper manners. Our observed examples guide us in discerning between right and wrong, serving as the foundation for our personal values and self-discovery. This process is integral to the development of our individual identities.

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

Now this round will be all rebuttals. "I would like to point out that, sinners can be repented and granted eternal life, if they believe in Jesus. Will a benevolent god, who understands every action that you take, really send you to hell, based on your sexual orientation?" A sinner is not repenting if they say sorry to God but keep sinning. God says gay marriage is sin, right? So remember this: since God condemns sinfulness, you cannot love God if you practice the sin. I get this off of the Bible. But where else would I get it from? Trust me, God doesn't WANT to send anybody to Hell, but we live in a world of free will and we have a choice to serve Him and repent (correctly), or serve the world and ignore Him. You cannot go to Heaven just because you think homosexuality isn't a sin and you "repented." http://www.scripturessay.com... "...god will forget about that how much of a good person you are, that you devoted your life to Jesus, yet based on your sexual orientation, a benevolent god will forget all of those things?" You are not a "good" person in God's eyes if you are purposefully sinning. You did not devote your life to Jesus if your lifestyle is against what Jesus said. "If you say that gays chose to be gay, why would they exactly chose to be gay?" OK...well I don't think people who come out gay think it's a bad thing themselves. But I ask you then, why would they want to be Christian if they know what the outcome will be? Besides, it's definitely a choice that you get married gay, and that's the main problem here if I'm not mistaken. http://www.thepartyofchoice.com... "If they chose to be gay, how is it immoral? I have a strong feeling that you believe that it is immoral just because a ancient religious book says so?" Yes. But it's not just an ancient book, and I've been stressing this throughout the debate multiple times. I will do it again: the Bible is the Christian's guide to life. Without it, we are making our faith' into a 'blind faith,' and we have no understanding of who/what God is. If we do not trust the Bible than can we truly trust God? Then we must converse about immorality. Here's the thing: if a Christian chooses to be gay, that's immoral in God's eyes and the two lifestyles contradict each-other. This is why you have to decide if you want to be Christian or keep living "gay." As a Christian you believe that God created us, but how'd you learn that? The Bible. And guess what? In the Bible God says that homosexuality is an abomination or detestable sin. It's a trap that keeps coming back to the Bible. Thank you for taking this debate seriously and not getting carried away on other topics! I admire your philosophical attack in most of these subjects. This concludes my behalf for Round 3.

My opponent doesn't seem to understand what this is about. I stumbled upon a website here that should help you understand the issue so we have a good debate. I will argue that people are born gay and gays don't recruit. Thanks for debating. My opponent is supposed to argue this line of reasoning "Because homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting "TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT" in their homosexual parades. A group called the "Lesbian Avengers" prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print "WE RECRUIT" on their literature." [0]Source0. http://www.traditioninaction.org...

I. I am gay. I was made a certain way and never had a choice. It was important for me to use many sources and ALL ARE SCIENTIFICALLY BASED. I know how easy it is to find a non-scientific biased site, but all of my sources are scientific. II. Homosexuality is natural. It is not a choice. Nobody would choose homosexuality if it was a choice. Homosexuality is a natural occurence in animals and in environments without contact from other societies. [http:// www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/15750604/] [http:// www. pureintimacy. org/ gr/ homosexuality/a0000058. cfm] [http:// www. apa. org/ topics/sorientation. html] [Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy and Clyde E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948), p.651.] [Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: a Symbolic Confusion, (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979) p.l57.] [Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org.......] [D'Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T., "Childhood Gender Atypicality, Victimization, and PTSD Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth," Journal of Interpersonal Violence] [Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org.......] [Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org.......] [Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org.......] [Roselli C.E., Larkin K., Schrunk J.M., Stormshak F., "Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams," Physiology and Behavior, 2004, Nov 15;83(2):233-45.] III. Homosexuals are capable parents who are loving and are just as capable as heterosexual parents. Therefore, gay parents should be allowed to adopt. [http:// www. apa. org/ pi/ parent. html] [American Academy of Pediatrics, "Co-parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics 109 (Feb. 2002): 341.] [Brodzinsky, David, "Adoptions by Gays and Lesbians: A National Survey of Adoption Agency Policies, Practices, and Attitudes," Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, October 29, 2003.] [Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T. "Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, April 2001.] [Dingfelder, S. "The kids are all right,", The Monitor on Psychology, A Publication of The American Psychological Association, December, 2005, Vol. 36, No. 11.] [American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., Oct. 8-11, 2005. Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. Carol Berkowitz, MD, former president, American Academy of Pediatrics.] [Excerpt from statement released by the American Academy of Pediatrics, February 2002.] [American Psychiatric Association, "Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples." Approved by the Board of Trustees and by the Assembly, November 2002.] [American Psychological Association, Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Clients, www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/guidelines.html.] [American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Policy Statement, Facts for Families: Children with Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Parents, June 1999, NO. 92, updated August, 2006.] [http://www.aacap.org...... exual_and_transgender_parents.] [American Anthropological Association, Statement on Marriage and the Family, February 25, 2004.] [Dr. John Gottman in discussion with the author at the training: A Research-based Approach To Marital Therapy, Dallas, Texas, September 2001.] IV. It is discriminatory and not any humans' right to judge which love is correct or wrong. (Matthew 7:1) "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. Luke 6:41 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Romans 14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. Romans 14:13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. Isa 66:5 Eze 16:52-56 Lu 6:37 Ro 2:1,2 14:3,4,10-13 1Co 4:3-5 Jas 3:1 4:11,12 I want everyone to understand that it does hurt to see prejudice homophobes distorting the Bible and scientific fact to hurt us.

I do agree with what you said about the study presented in 2000. However, I fail to see how disproving the fact that the amount of "male hormone" in your body, disprove genetics, and the brain that is responsible for sexual orientation. For an example, the amygdalae that is responsible for controlling emotions, arousal, creating emotions for memory, and controlling sex hormones is found quite similar to females in gay men. In the tests they have done, the number of gay people seem to have a very similar amygdalae to women. http://www.pnas.org... Being gay, can be largely based on genetics. First, there may be genetic foundations for homosexuality. J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, for example, discovered that 52% of the identical twins of male homosexuals were also homosexual, compared to only 22% of non-identical twins. Likewise, they found that if one identical twin is lesbian, in almost 50% of the cases studied, the other twin is lesbian as well, in comparison to 16% of the non-identical twins. " If men having frequent and sincere sex with one another is what we mean by "gay," then do we really believe that something so fundamentally different was happening in the Ancient Athenian gene pool? Did some evolutionary occurrence enable Plato"s ancestors to get rid of all of those heterosexual genes? And what about native cultures in which all boys engage in homosexual rites of passage? " Homosexuals do have children, but at a considerably lower rate than do heterosexuals. So why hasn't it "evolved out" of us? There are a number of possibilities, but the most obvious one is that the genes responsible for sexual orientation are similar to those simpler genes that account for sickle-cell anemia: If you have a sickle-cell gene from mom and a sickle-cell gene from dad, then you will get sickle-cell anemia, a deadly disease. But the sickle-cell gene remains a part of the population because, if you only have one of them you will be more resistant to malaria. http://webspace.ship.edu... "Secretly, you already know that people"s sexual desires are shaped by their social and cultural context." I fail to see any evidence based on that. When in fact, humans are not the only animals that show behaviors of homosexuality. Here is a list of fish, bird, and mammals that show homosexual traits. Amazon molly Bennett Blackstripe topminnow Bluegill Sunfish Char Grayling European Bitterling Green swordtail Guiana leaffish Houting Whitefish Jewel Fish Least Darter (Microperca punctulata) Mouthbreeding Fish sp. Salmon spp. Southern platyfish Ten-spined stickleback Three-spined stickleback Barn Owl Chicken Common Gull Emu King Penguin Mallard Raven Seagull Bison Brown Bear Brown Rat Cavy Caribou Cat (domestic) Cattle (domestic) Chimpanzee Common Dolphin Common Marmoset Dog Elephant Fox Giraffe Goat Horse (domestic) Human Koala Lion Orca Raccoon http://en.wikipedia.org... "Give me an example and show me how they are Christian. If you are considered Christian it doesn't mean you're truly Christian." Well, I am presuming you are Christian? There are about two billion Christians in the world, and like I presented before, none has never told a lie. " It is something that Jesus forgives and paid the price for. Homosexuality is a lifestyle PLUS a sin PLUS immoral according to our Creator, and we must try our best to respect God's laws and be moral. Thus a gay Christian is a contradiction." I don't see how if you lie, you can be forgiven (when god doesn't approve lying), and you can't be forgiven for being gay? Like I said before, in the study presented, the researchers were surprised how many times people lie in 10 minutes. How is lying not a life style? Lying is a way of life. http://www.rense.com... Definition of lifestyle: a particular way of living : the way a person lives or a group of people live http://www.merriam-webster.com...

ROUND 4: HOMOSEXUALITY AND MORALITY The debate over homosexuality, in general, is far broader and more controversial than most debates. In fact, the sheer scope of the debate is too large for me to adequately address every argument. Therefore, I’ll provide only one argument to reason the assertion that homosexuality is not immoral and therefore should be accepted: Homosexuality is something you are inherently born with, thus you should not be criticized and/or discriminated against because of it. Since this topic directly responds to my opponents assertions in round 2, I’ll take this moment to refute them. In his opening argument, my opponent said “Let me just start off with the fact that it is a choice, but not in the sense one chooses to be gay. Basically, there has been no scientific proof that you are born gay, the so-called "gay gene" has been disproved over and over again. It happens in your childhood and in the environment in which you were raised, and therefore can be changed.” His assertions are mistaken for a multitude of reasons, including the fact that he does not address additional evidence besides the gay gene. To cannibalize on an earlier debate I had on this topic, I’ve requoted a few select sources I feel get my point across. “Humans aren't the only species that has same-sex pairings. For instance, female Japanese macaques may sometimes participate in energetic sexual stimulation. Lions, chimpanzees, bison and dolphins have also been spotted in same-sex pairings. And nearly 130 bird species have been observed engaging in sexual activities with same-sex partners.” [1] “Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live unnaturally.” [2] “We know, from many twin and adoption studies, that sexual preference has a genetic component.” [3] “Scientists have uncovered the strongest evidence yet in the debate of whether people are ‘born gay’.” [4] While these articles may appear subjective and speculative, they provide sufficient reasoning that people are born gay. Another compelling source, one that actually provides scientific data, is the widely groundbreaking study Psychological Medicine. In the study, the abstract concludes the following: “Conclusions Results, especially in the context of past studies, support the existence of genes on pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28 influencing development of male sexual orientation.” [5] While there is no irrefutable evidence that a person is born gay, as scientific studies continue to evolve, the validity of this notion because more and more accepted. Let’s look at the facts: attraction is something developed without outside influence. (hypothetically, someone cannot make another person inherently attracted to something they did not originally find attractive.) Hence, attraction is naturally occurring and cannot be dictated by society. Homosexuality is the sole attraction to someone of the same gender. Since attraction is naturally occurring, homosexuality is also naturally occurring. Now, there are cases in which people assert that society allotted them to be gay and have relations with members of the same sex. This is true. However, the notion that their attraction was a choice is not. Their sudden attraction to someone of the same sex simply means they’ve realized they can find someone attractive. In more specific terms, it means their sexuality has developed further. For someone to say that homosexuality is a choice, they must also concede that heterosexuality is a choice. This suddenly introduces the argument that gays can chose to be straight and straights can chose to be gay. However, nearly all heterosexuals will assert that they cannot be gay because they cannot find it in themselves to be attractive to someone of the same gender. To make a long story short: people can chose to carry out a homosexual act, but cannot chose to be homosexual. Attraction is something developed over time that has nothing to do with the nurture aspect of society. It is something people are inherently born with that develops as they explore their inner being, because of this, people should not be viewed as abominable. They should be accepted for being who they are. Citations: 1. http://www.livescience.com... 2. http://www.natureworldnews.com... 3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 4. http://www.pinknews.co.uk... 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... ________________________________________________________ With my arguments for this round complete, I turn the debate over to my opponent. See you in the final round!

"I would like to say that just because you have same sex parents doesn't mean the opposite-sex ain't around." However, even though the opposite sex isn't around, you are mostly getting interactions with your parents. Therefore, you aren't seeing that sex as often, therefore not absorbing as much of the personality as you should. Grandparents, unless they are living with the child, will at average see the child every 1 or 2 weeks. They will not have teachers until they are about 5-6 years old, so by then, they will have most of their personality (I'm assuming about 50-60%). So they wouldn't be as influenced by teachers as much as they would with their parents. Besides, they only see their teacher for a set amount of time, usually 6-7 hours, for only 5 days a week. With their friends, they won't really absorb personality from there. Little kids are really sexist. They don't realize that they are being sexist, but they are. The two sexes don't mix in the younger grades. So if a girl has a more male personality, she won't be accepted in the female group. She won't be accepted in the male group either, as she is a girl. Most studies have not found the adopted children to be happy. In fact, they are quite the opposite. Children adopted by homosexuals are more prone to being alcoholics, suicidal, people who cut themselves, depression, and being homosexuals themselves. I know you think being homosexual isn't bad, but in the long run, an increase in the homosexual population will be bad for the Earth's population as a whole. If there are more homosexuals, then there will be a decrease in the amount of children being born, and in the long run, that will not be good for the Earth. Now it all comes down to this... If you ever pass away and leave your child parent-less, would you rather have a heterosexual couple adopt your child, or a homosexual couple, in which case your child will be more prone to being alcoholic, suicidal, someone who harms themselves, or depression? Please think about this, voters, and don't let your personal feelings come out when you vote. Vote for whoever you think did better, and what you see the facts support more. Thanks all. And thanks for the great debate, opponent. This debate made me think a lot and do a lot of research as well.

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.

I enjoyed reading your rebuttal. I will defend my statements (The ones you "attacked") in the same order you have them in. Note that I use offensive language, such as twat, in the same case as dolt or fool. I am not meaning to offend or call names. 1. I appreciate your kindness, dear sir. Gender-fluid people, such as myself, are often times triggered by either emotional or personal reasons (Such as "I feel pretty today. Dunno why. Just do. ). There is not enough study into the psychology of genderfluidity to understand exactly why we feel different genders. There is no internal struggle, I have my mind very well made. Some days I feel more like your stereotypical boy, and some a girl. 2. Of course, you see people breaking out of these European gender roles more and more, but women are still thought to wear dresses and be pretty, while men strong and stoic. If there were a way to post pictures (@debate. org staff), I would provide some examples. Dresses are still seen as girl clothes, while slacks and button-downs boy clothes. 3. You are very correct in assuming I am not 12, 15 in April in fact. I grew up being told the difference between sex and gender, as my mother took multiple gender studies classes in college. Sex, being either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions, and gender, being the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones), are obviously two completely different things. Sex is really easy: Do you have a penis, vagina, or somewhere in-between (intersex)? Gender, on the other hand, is mental. It's based on the society around you and your personal beliefs (Such as the Native American example). 4. Take pedophiles for example. They could identify as straight, yet prey on children of their same gender. There is quite literally nothing stopping me (Assuming I am strictly male in this example) from going into the women's toilets and chilling around there. According to this survey (which I fact checked, good resource), yes, LGBT+ people are the minority. Nothing is stopping a straight Tom, Predator, or Kidnapper from going into a women's toilet and snatching/raping/oogling a young girl. Most Transgendered people are not rapists or pedophiles, just as most straight folk aren't. 5. There you go again, confusing sex and gender. I can say that I identify more with the societal norms associated with girls, but still have a penis and therefore can reproduce. 6. Johns Hopkins is a hospital, you twat. Gender Dysphoria (The feeling of "Being in the wrong body") is a mental disorder. I'm not saying it isn't, this has been proven. Typically, the treatment for this involves hormonal therapy and sex changes to help the person feel more happy with their body. Do you know why Trans people have a higher suicide rate? Because people constantly harass them about not being valid or a person. Their gender (IE the way they identify based on societal norms), should not concern other people, for it is their life to live. Let them live it. 7. I would simply put "Gender-Fluid", or GF I guess. If a person gives a physical description of someone, a police sketch artist give them a picture of the criminal's face. If you can't look at a picture of someone, and then out of 10 suspects point out the person in the picture, I can recommend you an optometrist. 8. Fallout 5 confirmed. If WWIII does happen, I got your back, Brother.

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.