Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Individuals are innately gay from birth. Sexual orientation, similar to height, is predetermined at birth. Although it may not be immediately evident at the time of birth, it is an inherent characteristic.

I thank Nye for his reply, I do not for one second doubt his integrity as to making positive arguments. I know for a fact that he has made only positive arguments. Let us then go through each point systematically. My opponent makes four arguments, I will address them in the order I deem them most important. R1: That homosexuality is natural therefore moral. > We need to study this argument from two perspectives: that homosexuality is natural, and therefore moral. I think I should point out that Nye gives no evidence for any of this. S/he does not give me any reason to believe homosexuality is in fact natural, or why natural should be moral. This argument then fails here and now. > On the first tier let us try to understand if homosexuality is in fact natural. Now those who propose this quote the gene named Xq28. Well I have a few answers to this. Firstly what we need to understand is that even if Xq28 is true then it would only effect one becoming gay to twenty or thirty percent.[1] This is over run by the fact that there exists a stronger nurturing capability. Now Xq28 contains 8 Mb of genetic data and was made famous by Dean Hamer in 1933, however it is a genotype. Now genes resolve themselves into two categories: genotypes and phenotype. What you experience in hair, color et cetera is based on phenotypes, genotypes are nearly impossible to prove. In fact the same genotype which could result in a person being feminine could result in a person being more anxious, as Xq28 shows. You see relating genotypes to phenotypes is impractical. In the words of Denis Noble (an Oxford Professor): "Relating genotypes to phenotypes is problematic not only owing to the extreme complexity of the interactions between genes, proteins and high-level physiological functions but also because the paradigms for genetic causality in biological systems are seriously confused." So in essence this argument falls. > In any case for Nye to bring such an argument is abhorrent. After all pedophilia is natural, rape is natural (following one's desires), psychopathy is natural, however we regard none of these things as moral. For none of them are rational, even if they are natural. > Since however Nye never proved this argument I use Hitchen's Razor and his argument should not be counted in any case. Also since Xq28 is only found in guys and our argument is about homosexuals in general (including lesbians) this argument does not address the issues at hand. R2: It can't go wrong with gays: > In my opponent's argument there is a logical fallacy. You see while he seems to be using the second law of thought, he is in fact not doing so. My opponent says that when girls have sex and become pregnant this is immoral because they did not want the child (how does that make it immoral in matters of our definition) and since gays cannot get pregnant it must be moral. This represents as: all S* is I no S* is G* ergo: no G is I This fails the validity test and Nye's argument is nonsensical. You see by not doing something immoral, the action you do is not moral by its very nature. While making a girl pregnant may be an immoral act (something he never showed) it is not the ONLY immoral act. There are other immoral acts which can apply to gays, this just shows that THIS act does not apply. The argument fails. R3: Homosexuals adopt children which is a moral thing to do: > Here again is a logical fault. I never said homosexuals could do nothing moral. The resolution states that homosexuality is immoral, and homosexuality was defined in the rules as: acts of sex by members of the same sex. The reason for this is that homosexuality is only made homosexual when a sexually charged act takes place. The debate here is about sexual activities, not about their personal life. If a gay person helps an old lady cross the street it may be a moral thing to do, but it does not make homosexuality moral, it makes the homosexual moral in that regard. > My opponent's argument is the same here: it makes no difference to the resolution. His argument is in fact besides the point. That aside heterosexual couples adopt way more kids than homosexuals do.[3] R4: It is not irrational: > I think the best response for this can be found in my argument above, where I systematically show how it is, in fact, irrational. > More importantly however my opponent strawmans my arguments by making them something they are not. For he says that I base it on religion when I do no. There is also an ad populam fallacy as he says it is rational because people consider it so, this should reflect negatively upon him. > In any case my opponent concedes (:P) when he himself says: 'it should not be considered moral". I am of course joking. With that the motion is upheld, and my opponent'c contentions collapse. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://musicoflife.co.uk... [3]http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... Faithfully Yours, Ajabi

I would mention that this debate is not personnel or provoking but instead two minds exchanging thought. NOTE: My opponent does not address most of my argument from round 2. HOMOSEXUAL IDENTIFICATION What makes the distinction for a homosexual to be a homosexual? Well we established that in Round 1 with the definitions: "Of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire(lust) toward another of the same sex. 2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex. " I have met this characterization for males by showing(& my opponent agreeing) that male men could not have anal sexual intercourse because it was a abomination. This was not satisfactory for my opponent, he wants God to direct us about oral sex, kissing, and loving relationships between same sexes. He claims it is faulty by me to suggest that male anal sex is homosexuality. This is a negative, what I have given specifically describes the definitions we agreed on in round 1. Anyone should agree that male anal sex is deemed homosexual behavior. This behavior is clearly forbidden in the Bible. As for kissing and just loving relationships by same sex individuals, they are not part of the definition nor do they specifically describe homosexuality. Anyone can love someone of the same-sex, anyone can kiss someone of the same-sex(mouth or not), there are over 30 verses that talk about men kissing. Anyone can have affection for someone of the same sex, and this does not make them homosexual. HOMOSEXUAL LUST Romantic feelings and sexual feelings are inherently intertwined. Therefore homosexuality in a romantic relationship involves lust, as do heterosexual relationships. Though after marriage one is not lusting for their partner but in love with them. Since we have no determination of the Bible on homosexual marriage then lust by any individual unmarried would be a sin. James 1:15, "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. " ANAL SEX It is true that anal sex is not solely a homosexual trait. We see that it is sin for two males to have anal sex and for a man and woman to have anal sex. Anal sex is determined a sin. LESBIANISM Romans 1:26, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. " The next verse describes that which is against nature, Romans 1:27, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. " We see that before the men are described, it first says the women are going against nature and then it describes what that unnatural act is in the description of the men. My opponent gave us a video from YouTube and I will address that here. God did not give them their desires, it is clear that this was their own desires. God simply allowed this with no recourse, as punishment for their idolatry. Romans 1:24, "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves. " We see here that they had these desires in their own hearts, not from God. We also notice the phrases used to describe these acts, "lust, unseemly, error, vile and against nature. " These descriptions do not sound like they are good in the sight of God. For God to give them up means that He held it from them because it was not as He wanted. God considered Lesbianism the same as male homosexuality and He has given us what He thinks about it. Why would God not allow male same-sex intercourse and condone female same-sex intercourse? He wouldn't. MARRIAGE But we can clear this up real quick by saying that my opponent must show that homosexuals are actually condoned to marry in the Bible. If he doesn't then he will fail because the Bible clearly states that any sexual act outside of marriage is immoral and a sin. So, my opponent must show that same-sex couples were permitted to marry in the Bible or Israel. The Bible presents marriage as an estate instituted by God, pointing to the Marriage of the Lamb. It is the ultimate union, of the Bridegroom, Christ, to His Bride, the Church. 1 Corinthians 7:2, "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. " We see that God has commanded that every male should have a female. If my opponent could show that homosexual marriage is suggested to be valid by the Bible then we could engage in the actual debate he desires. But that is not what we see, we see that God ordains men and women to be married and any sexual relationship outside of marriage is a sin. In the seventh of God's Ten Commandments, he instructs us not to have sex with anyone other than our spouse. It is clear that God forbids sex outside of marriage. 1 Corinthians 6:18, "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. " 1 Corinthians 7:9, "But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. " ORAL SEX Oral sex and fondling are also included in male or female homosexual acts. I have shown that only homosexual marriage could condone oral sex or fondling. The Bible never thoroughly addresses this point. REBUTTAL My opponent made it clear that he wishes me to address all his points. Well most of his points are assertions that were not backed by any source. As well his debate structure was difficult to understand. I understand he is new and that should not be a excuse for me, so I will do as best as I can. "Throughout the ages, Hebrew prohibition of homosexuality was perceived as easily understood. Basing themselves on T. B. Nedarim 51a, commentators explained the act as unnatural, a perversion of the human sexual drive. " . http://www.nishma.org... If I understand my opponent correctly he is saying that because Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 never says anything about kissing, love, or oral sex it is not describing homosexuality as a whole nor describing all sexual acts that homosexuals can do. Well I will bring up that both verses say,"Shalt not lie", which are also in verses Leviticus 18:20 & Deuteronomy 28:30, and they say: "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her. " "Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her. " By my opponent's conclusion we can have oral sex and kiss our neighbors wife or another man ours. If 'shalt not lie' only means penetration then the Bible tells us as long as we do not penetrate another man's wife we can have oral sex and kiss them. Furthermore the passages in Lev. 18:22 & 20:13 also describe any act a man would do with a man in the bedroom. If one can consider that women would give a man oral sex then that is also forbidden in these verses. I do not reject my opponents rendeering of the verses in Hebrew or their wording. I do conflict with his interpretation of them. I think I have just shown that God made it clear that any act that a man would commit in the bedroom with a woman is deemed a sin for same-sex individuals. CONCLUSION I will not deny that the Bible suggest people to love one another, both male and female. I will not deny that the Bible says nothing on kissing people(kissing on the cheek was a tradition back then. ) The Bible has made it clear that men should not be with men nor women be with women, it is unnatural. The Bible as shown refers to homosexuality as lust, unnatural, vile, and a error. We are left to determine that Bible refers homosexuality as a sin. Back to Pro!

First of all I said nothing about rape I said child molestations and yes it is true visit think link http://hem.passagen.se... it has a study performed by homosexuals that shows the percentage is above 75% in the north eastern states that homosexuals make up a much higher percentage of child molestations thus proving that it is a perversion unsatisfied by the homosexual agenda. And as far as Michael Jackson is concerned is he truly the subject you want to support your opinion? that fact is I am showing you statistically proven facts about homosexuals and their immoral and unhealthy contributions to society and you are simply telling me your opinion based argument. You see you are the one that is stereotyping, rights?? haha why should they have rights? your trying to compare them to a race or a undecided dysfunction if homosexuality is not a choice or a prevision then why is it a fact that some have become heterosexuals and quit the homosexuality completely? you cannot quit being black or white or Hispanic, you cannot choose if your born with blond or black hair, you can however choose if your going to succumb to perversion. Homosexuals should not have rights under the fact that they are homosexuals, as a human and a citizen yes but not as a homosexual. And it does not matter to me if its more in the male community the fact is homosexuals are spreading HIV to over 500 partners in life, and yes heterosexuals spread also but heterosexuality is natural and reproduces, homosexuality does one thing only and that is satisfy a perversion that exists only because we are taught to accept it.

homosexuality is a genetic disorder i'm not arguing it is or is not natural, cause you could argue it's the way nature made em. but if homos were functioning they way they were suppose to, they would be attracted to the opposite sex. people with down syndrome dont pretend they aren't disordered. anaology applies to homos. look at their genitals, that indicates they are suppose to mate with the opposite sex and implies be attracted.

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 second point was made in case we wished to argue my first point. I'd like to take a look at your first point. You're completely right, however, I fail to see how this makes gender or sex unalterable. One may be born blonde but later on in life, they change it to brown. I'd also like to mention that a disorder is a condition that affects a person's well being. How does being transgender affect anyone's health? Anorexia is a serious issue that can cause death. How does that compare?

My opponent has conceded that genes do play a role in the outcome of homosexuality with " Genes can increase the likelihood of someone being gay" thus if something outside of our free will which determines choice affects us and our sexual orientation, then how can my opponent argue it is a choice. My opponent has admitted that our free will can be affected by our genes this obviously leads to a conclusion that the desire for homosexual relations is not a purely based on choice. The genetic predisposition to addiction or the 'addiction gene' works the same way as the gay gene If a child has the addiction gene they are 8 times more likely to develop an addiction(1). Just like the gay gene if you have it you are much more likely to be gay. In relation to my opponents alcohol point if one never comes into contact with alcohol even with the addiction gene one can not become an alcoholic this is true(1) but it only hinders my opponents argument. As just like the addiction gene if a male with the gay gene never comes into contact with another male how can he be gay? The homosexuality still exists just as the addiction there is yet though no desire to act it out as one does not know what it is they desire. However no such hypothetical situation exists and unlike those with the addiction gene whom may never taste alcohol thus never 'trigger' the addiction males will always come into contact with other males thus 'triggering' the homosexual response from the gay gene. Again reaffirming the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. On my opponents last point this is known as the 'Anecdotal fallacy' and should be dismissed as evidence. Also you say your parents raised you to be straight, I have to ask where is your choice in that? I feel it obvious that I have the stronger case and have used much more credible arguments and evidence to support my claims unlike my opponent who used only one reference as evidence and presented no real arguments to refute the choice except for his biblical verse which was easily dismissed. I however used factual evidence and several different sound arguments which all lead to the one conclusion homosexuality is not a choice. Thank you reference: 1. http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org...

Round three rebuttals"POINT #1: HOMOSEXUALITY IS A MENTAL ILLNESS.Purely by definition you can tell it fits the description."any of a broad range of medical conditions (such as major depression, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, or panic disorder) that are marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions to impair normal psychological functioning and cause marked distress or disability and that are typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning"" ScmiedforgeI fail to perceive how you have sufficiently backed up your claim. Second, you fail to address how this impacts the resolution and thus is both a bare assertion fallacy and red herring thus far. "Description A premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true." [8]"The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic." [9]"However I'll gladly go into further detail. Homosexual teens are 5 times more likely to attempt committing suicide than their heterosexual peers, and apparently that's in a supportive or at least not unsupportive environments." ScmiedforgeThis is circular reasoning. Gays are mentally ill because theyattempt to commit suicide more often therefore they are mentally ill. "Mental Illness and Violent Crimes"The assumption that people with mental health issues are violent is deeply entrenched (cleaver-wielding 'lunatic' costumes, anyone?). It often leads to circular reasoning. How often have you heard people claim that committing a violent crime is proof of mental illness? 'Only a mentally ill person would kill someone, so anyone who kills someone is automatically mentally ill.' Leaving aside the vast majority of homicides which aren’t committed by people with mental problems, this isn’t evidence based."" [10]My opponent assumes the premise of gays being mentally ill by showing that gays are more likely to commit violent crimes against them selves. A more reasonable explanation would be anti-gay sentiment and stigma often from religious groups. Think of the WestBoro Baptist Church. [11]"The study, published in the journal Pediatrics online on April 18, was conducted in order to determine whether living in a gay friendly social environment affected the risk of a teen identifying as homosexual committing suicide. It found that teens in unsupportive social environments were 20 percent more at risk of attempting suicide than those in supportive environments. "" ScmiforgeMy opponent has provided evidence that the reason gays are more likely to attempt to commit suicide is due at least in part to non-supportive social environments and not mental illness. ""concluding that homosexuals are far more likely to engage in illegal and socially dangerous behavior than heterosexuals. In fact, according to the study, homosexuals are over 107% more likely to have been booked for illegal activity than heterosexuals."" SchmiforgeMy opponent has engaged in circular reasoning again. That only crazy people commit crimes and therefore gays are crazy.""The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation."" SchmiforgeMy opponent has not proved that the men committing the acts were homosexual. Most rapes are committed for reasons of control and not sexual drive. Most likely the vast majority of men committing those sex abuse crimes against boys are straight."You can come to your own conclusions, but a spike in crime/suicide attempts are very rarely seen in groups that are not mentally ill." SchmiforgeCircular reasoning, there is a lot of anti-gay sentiment and stigma. "POINT #2: MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.Judaism talked about marriage long before government was involved in it, (1550-1200 B.C) then Christianity, then Islam...so since the major Religions of today all believe marriage is between a Man and a Woman and religion is the core of marriage" SchmiforgeThis is effectively an argument for might makes right. That the Abraham religions genocide and otherwise beat into submission the other religions, thus their voice should be heard and not others. Many religions have vastly different points of view than the Abraham religions, some even think homosexuality is a boon and not a bane. "POINT #3: MAIN PURPOSES OF MARRIAGE/NATURE AND NURTURE." SchmiforgeSchmiforge tries to make some point about love and gays and straight, but I can't make heads out of tails out of the argument.My opponent then takes a source from the infamous breitbart. "RIGHT BIASThese media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.Factual Reporting: MIXED"[12]Due to the mixed factual reporting, I think it is safe to say my opponent's claim is unsubstantiated and need a reliable source to be taken seriously. Second, there is a difference between a secret or closet gay and open gay. Most likely the study shows that the children are more likely to be openly gay as opposed to secretly gay. "Children of same-sex couples fare better when it comes to physical health and social well-being than children in the general population, according to researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia." [13]My opponent then claims that children brought up in gay families fare worse. The above quote shows that in some ways those children fare better.Sources8. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...9. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...10. http://grammar.about.com...13. https://www.washingtonpost.com...11. http://godhatesfags.com...12. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...13. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I have three arguments which I will be focusing on during this debate.1. Homosexuality is transfered through the genesThe question often comes up whether homosexuality is genetics or simply a decision that one must make. Often the argument is made that it is simply a decision, however this is not the case. A study was conducted, surveying all pairs of adult twins(20-47 years old) in Sweden. A total of 3826 twin pairs who identified themselves in same sex relationships were studied. In men 34-39% of cases of homosexuality cases could be described by genetics and woman 18-19% of homosexuality cases could be described by genetics[1]. The other factor, which accounted for a large proportion in both cases was individual environmental factors. In sight of this information and the strength of this study, isn't this a good indication that perhaps homosexuality is natural? We can extend this idea into other parts of nature, specifically the animal kingdom.2. Animals, part of nature also exhibit homosexual behaviourIt is often the assumption that animals do not possess some of the qualities that humans do, but homosexuality is one where this assumption does not hold. Little do most people know, some animals do show homosexual behaviour. Couldn't it then be argued, since animals are apart of and partly represent nature homosexuality is natural? A passage in "Animal Homosexuality" states that "other primates, but also rodents, various social mammals and some bird species express intimate sexual contacts between members of the same sex on a regular basis. .. "[2]. This highlights homosexuality in a natural world. To go a step further, there are many animals that are very familiar to us that have been observed expressing homosexual behaviour, including the brown bear, cats, cattle, dogs, chickens, horses, seagulls, bearded dragon and many many more. [3]So as said many times before, if so many animals in nature exhibit homosexual behaviour, this mounts a strong case for the argument that homosexuality is natural. But often the argument that arises out of this is how does homosexuality survive through natural selection?3. Natural selection promotes the homosexuality geneOur common sense would have us infer that homosexuality should be eliminated through the process of natural selection. Since homosexuality does not allow for reproduction, the consequential laws of natural selection should phase it out. How can this not be the case if it is natural? Well, this requires us to take a deeper look into natural selection. The theory of natural selection states that genes/traits that are detrimental to the survival of a species will not be selected in future generations. But it is often forgotten that genes can correspond to multiple traits. So in theory, if homosexuality is natural, and there is a gene associated to it, if this gene also contained a trait that benefitted survival/reproduction more than homosexuality detracts from it, then this gene would be transfered through natural selection. As stated in another twin study on homosexual behaviour, it was found that the evidence was in line with the above idea. They went further, using their evidence to theorise that genes influencing homosexuality have two effects. Not only do these genes increase the risk of homosexuality, but they also increase sex-atypical gender identity which could increase the chance of mating in hetrosexuals. [4] In other words, the risk of homosexuality caused by this gene would be out weighed by the benefits of increased mating success amongst heterosexuals. SummaryIn summary of the above three arguments, they clearly present a strong case that homosexuality is a natural trait. In a comprehensive study of twins, a decent proportion of homosexuality was found to be caused by genetics. Homosexuality is also prevelant in the animal kingdom, and surely that can be considered natural. Finally, it was shown that homosexuality could work under the laws of natural selection, with the heterosexual benefits of the homosexual gene outweighing the negative effects. Despite the apparent downfalls of homosexuality being genetic, the above arguments have shown that this is indeed a possibility and that the evidence supports this. Hence homosexuality has a strong case towards being natural. References(1) Långström, N. , Rahman, Q. , Carlström, E. , & Lichtenstein, P. (2010). Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: A population study of twins in sweden. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1), 75-80. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9386-1(2) Poiani, Aldo (2010). Animal Homosexuality : A Biosocial Perspective. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved July 05, 2012, from Ebook Library. (3) . http://en.wikipedia.org...(4) ZIETSCH, B (01/01/2008). "Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals". Evolution and human behavior , 29 (6), p. 424.

I do not believe that I have to explain something that is so simple. Of course there is journalistic bias in doing research, regardless of the evidence. A researcher can easily manipulate their evidence in order to meet a certain agenda. In this case a homosexual researcher will obviously make the claim that homosexuality is genetic, regardless of their findings because they are homosexual. Saying "I am homosexual because I was born this way" is easier than recollecting and dealing with trauma that happened in their life. Like I said, I did not source religiously affiliated sources, because there is a chance of bias. Obviously democrats will interpret data differently than a republican in order to fit their narrative. I cannot believe this is such a difficult idea to wrap your head around. Regardless it is not that big of an issue. 1.) You misread my argument, and I do not want to do this again where I tell you my position again because you misread. We have limited amounts of responses so if I am just restating my position over and over again because you cannot read, we are not going to go anywhere. The reason I mentioned its removal from the DSM 2 is because it was removed because there was no evidence to support that it was not a mental illness. THEREFORE, it is still a mental illness because there is not enough evidence to support that it is biological. Its removal was not based on science but on public backlash. This is coming from the American Psychiatric Association. 2.) No, I am not sourcing DesertNews.com. How do you miss this? It is in the first sentence. I am sourcing "The New Family Structure Study" which "fun fact" was done with the help of Mark Regnerus. Even more of a fun fact, it is his study, yeah it is called the Regnerus New Family Structure Study. And no, he does not say that anywhere. In fact, this study says the complete opposite. If you would like, here is the entire paper with its findings, tell me where you see it. http://scholar.google.com... 3.) Again, READ, I am not sourcing procon.org, I am sourcing David W Purcell, JD. If you read, you would see that there is a correlation between men that have experienced childhood sexual abuse, and men that identify as homosexual. You do quote yourself "In the next three months he helped me to fully appreciate my body and UNDERSTAND MY SEXUALITY". You admit that rape can affect sexuality. So I guess I will take that as a win. That in of itself proves that homosexuality can be influenced by outside influences, but I digress. I did not say that being raped makes you homosexual, you are saying that I did. WHAT I DID SAY, and I quote "Homosexuality can be linked with being molested as a child", where you see "Being raped makes you homosexual" is beyond me. 4.) 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. However you should still be able to read and clearly see that it dealt with his childhood and experience into adolescence. Children having neglectful parents was not at all the point. The point was, and I quote, "Homosexuality can be related towards the lack of a parent-child relationship". CAN BE RELATED. How do you miss the entire paragraph after the quote that talks about the psychology of a child with neglectful parents? Also, I made sure not to write in affirmative language just so that I don't get into issues that you addressed earlier, speaking in broad generalizations. 5.) Your evidence to say that homosexuality is probably the worst evidence I have ever seen. 1.) This research clearly deals with epigenetics not genetics, there is a difference. 2.) This quote is a contradiction. "A is an allele that has little or no influence on sexual orientation" then goes on to say "and allele a masculinizes or feminizes both sexes, and thereby increases the probability of homosexuality" so which one is it, does it have little or no influence on sexual orientation or does it entirely influence sexual orientation. 3.) It is talking about fish. News flash, fish are not like humans. They are not even mammals. This is important because the research goes on to talk about intersexuality. As for example the Barramundi, who switch between male and female throughout their life cycle. 4.) I am not a scientist, but I can tell they are connecting things that are not supposed to be connected. Also, I dont think you understand this quote, you just saw "homosexuality" and "change" and something science related. There are fish, like I have mentioned, that change gender. In the quote they talk about outside chemicals that can cause this change in gender. They might have misinterpreted male fishes being exposed to a chemical and then turning female to being homosexual fish. But this is hardly even evidence because it only says "could" 6.) I love how you didnt even mention the the twins. It is an entire paragraph on its own. Not surprising though when you realize that you do not even read. How do I know this? Well (asides from the times I have mentioned it) you sourced FRC. Little did you know, I actually knew about that research study. Why did I not source it, because it is a christian organization, and I wanted to be fair and not source any group that could potentially show bias (but apparently you do not believe that research claims can be biased). What is funny to me is that you did not even read the publication. On the study it says many negatives of having homosexual parents such as : Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF): Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%) Have lower educational attainment Report less safety and security in their family of origin Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin Are more likely to suffer from depression Have been arrested more often If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female Also.... Children of lesbian mothers: Are more likely to be currently cohabiting Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance Are less likely to be currently employed full-time Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver." Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others Use marijuana more frequently Smoke more frequently Watch TV for long periods more frequently Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense I mean come on, can you read? Seriously though, how much of this response was me saying that you are not reading what I am stating. How is that productive to a debate. I am not going to say this again, read what I am saying carefully. You have plenty time to respond so take as much time as you need. I do not want to say this again. Fair?


Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

There is substantial proof that sexual orientation can be influenced by genetic factors. My argument is based on statistical analysis that indicates sharing certain genes raises the likelihood that you will be attracted to the same sex. The discussion wasn't about sexual orientation being solely determined by genetics, but rather that genetics do indeed play a significant role, as evidenced by the data I presented. It's noteworthy that my opponent hasn't refuted the evidence I've provided.

The statement, "[i]It's in our instincts that all of us, yes, including the other sexual orientations, are meant to be paired with the opposite sex,"[/i] is rather ambiguous. If the claim is that we are [u]all[/u] innately attracted to the opposite sex, then this is demonstrably false, given the existence of gay people.

The question, "[i]If it's indeed in the genetics, then why doesn't the genetic makeup of a gay man possess the qualities of a woman?[/i]" conflates sexual orientation and sexual identity. There are men with gender identity disorder (a brain that feels like it belongs to a woman) who are exclusively attracted to women. Conversely, there are masculine men who are attracted to other men. My opponent never explained why the involvement of genetics in sexual orientation would necessarily imply that a gay man should have feminine qualities.

The statement, "[i]He can't reproduce if he's only attracted to men, so why would his DNA make him a guy?[/i]" overlooks that homosexuals are not infertile. The assertion, "[i]The thing is, it doesn't make sense for a genetically homosexual individual not to be able to reproduce with other genetically homosexuals.[/i]" is unexplained by my opponent, who merely states it without justification. The majority of my opponent's arguments are irrelevant and somewhat incoherent, failing to counter the robust connection between genetics and sexual orientation that I've demonstrated.

And I will now spend this last round responding to all the claims this guy has made against my arguments and why they are just in particular wrong. 1. ""the so-called "gay gene" has been disproved over and over again" Inaccurate. As I stated in round, my opponent"s assertions are mistaken for a multitude of reasons, including the fact that he does not address additional evidence besides the gay gene. Read the rest of my argument there to find the sufficient rebuttal. " My opponent did mention my words on the gay gene in the 4th round, but even himself at the end of his sources said "While there is no irrefutable evidence that a person is born gay"! Meaning, there is still no exact proof! As I did only mention the gay gene, there is still nothing else that can prove homosexuality is something you are born with. 2. "Homosexuals cannot reproduce and keep the human population growing. " Irrelevant. As I"ve stated in former debates on the matter, if procreation was the sole basis for marriage, than an infertile couple, or an elderly couple, or a couple not wanting children all together should not be allowed to marry. Secondly, I could argue that not expanding the population surplus may not be a bad thing. " First off, infertile and elderly are things you do not have control over, homosexuality you do. And a couple not wanting children is fine because they still can, and if needed too (for some reason) they could. Secondly, I mentioned population in my speech, and said we do not need homosexuality to solve it. 3. "Homosexual marriage will have a very bad effect on our society. " Untrue. Firstly, let me address that my opponent has done nothing to substantiate this fallacious claim. Why? Perhaps it is because he has little evidence to support it. Well, unlike my opponent, I have evidence that proves the exact opposite of his assertions. If you go to gaymarriage. procon. org, you"ll find a list of pro"s including the following: "Gay marriages can bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments and can help boost the economy. Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. " I find it funny how my opponent did not even mention what I said right after that to support my claim. I said people will just say "love is love" which is very true. And I'll further into this on the next argument. 4. " A man loving animals such as dogs or horses is ok? I mean, it's not ,much different then homosexual marriage" Irrelevant, inaccurate, and wholly untrue. Of the upmost superficial and discriminatory arguments against homosexual marriage, this one is by far the most offensive. Firstly, likening a monogamous relationship between two consenting adults to bestiality is fallacious in the extreme. The mere fact that bestiality isn"t consensual refutes this point. Secondly, yet again has my opponent failed to substantiate such an imbecilic claim. " Again, he mentioned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I said after I stated the claim. He is right when he says bestiality isn't very consensual, but he also forgot to mention how I said animals liking different animals in very common in nature, such as the Dzo or Yakow. Also forgot to mention how the animal and man cannot reproduce, just like homosexuals. So yes, it is true. 5. "According to FRC. org, kids of homosexual parents compared to kids of biological parents,"Are more likely to suffer from depression" and "Have been arrested more often". " Inaccurate. Let me start of by saying that there is considerable bias in the FRC, which has, on more than one occasion, been labeled as a hate group. So, the fact that they say that they state such a thing is not uprising whatsoever. Secondly, if you were to fully read the article, you"ll notice how unscientific their "methods" were. So, my opponents supporting claims should be ignored. " Not surprised he would try and find some way to refute against my scientific study. He said that the methods were unscientific, but yet did not try and explain why. And the fact people have called it a hate group doesn't change their results from the study they pulled out. So no, my claims should be heard. 6. "Also, according too forthechildreninc. com, 29% of kids of homosexual parents said they had sexual interactions with their parents while only 0.6% of kids of heterosexual parents said they did. " Untrue. Firstly, I"d like to point out that the actual scientific study that states such an offensive claim has been removed. Secondly, let me be clear in stating that my opponent has used 2 sources that show unequivocal amounts of bias against homosexuality in general. My 5 sources are far less biased, with the final source coming from respected doctors around the country. " He said the actual scientific study that states this has been removed, and yet never mentioned what this study is or was. And then he went on to call my sources biased. So, he called it untrue, but really had no evidence to support why or how. So, again, my claims should be heard. 7. "We don't NEED homosexuality in order to control the population. Adoption, one child policy, and many other things can solve that. While there is surprisingly some truth in this assertion, I must address the horrendous choice to start supplementing "one child" policies. Firstly, it has no relation to homosexuality, secondly, it"s malicious in it"s very nature" My opponent failed to explain why a one child policy is malicious and also said it has no relation to homosexuality. That is true, because HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN! 8. "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. " Discriminating against someone because they are more susceptible to death is beyond wrong. If my opponent feels this way, then his list should include any child of a diabetic, any obese person, anyone with a family history of cancer and many other cases of susceptible diseases. " Guess what, you know what's different between homosexuals and obese people and people with diabetes, a family history of cancer, and many other cases of susceptible diseases? YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR PENIS, AND YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER YOUR WEIGHT! Excuse my bad language here, but you ultimately do have control over both those things and we should not just accept it if it can lead to death! 9. " "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. Firstly, this is basically a concession that my opponent doesn"t have any evidence refuting the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Secondly, let us address the additional fact that his lobbying for a cure is an irrelevant argument that only supports my claims that people should accept homosexuality because they do not have any sufficient reason not to. " Yes, there is still not enough evidence on sexuality as a whole. But he cannot just point out how I have no evidence as he still does not have enough to prove that homosexuality is not a choice! And aside from religion, I am not going to just accept a lifestyle that leads to HIV, will stop the human life from progressing and has no evidence to support its something you are born with. In conclusion, my opponent has tried to ridicule me and say my arguments are idiotic and simplistic when in reality they only prove the point that homosexuality is wrong, He has also cut out and copy and pasted only part of my arguments to try and easily prove against them. I will never treat someone who is homosexual or part of the LGBTQ+ community different from anyone else as they are still human and deserve that respect. Even though I do not agree with what they do and think it is wrong and sinful, I will respect their choices as I hope they respect my own opinions, as with my opponent. And although he was very rude towards the end, I respect that this topic is something he much cares about. So, through all my evidence and claims that I have proved, I very much urge you to vote for me, the con. Thank you!

My opponent makes the claim "children are born believing that there is a God"His assertion is based on a quote:Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose. A predisposition is not based on evidence. "Young people" are not babies. An assumption doesn't mean it's true. An assumption without evidencecan be dismissed without evidence. My opponent then goes on to say,"He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God. That doesn't make theism the default position. They don't START OUT as theists. They "would come to believe in God" at a later time. They start out as atheists. My opponent then proves me right by saying"Ofcourse (sic) new borns are not developed to think about things or what to believe"That means new borns can't possibly be theists, because they aren't developed enough to believe anything! My opponent then continues to provide evidence that atheism IS the default position! "even preschool children constructed theological concepts as part of their understanding of the physical world" That proves, again that they started out as atheists first, before they "constructed theological concepts""belief in God is not taught but develops naturally"Once again. .. the belief in god "develops naturally", AFTER one is already an atheist. More quotes from my opponent:"It was hard-wired into the human psyche, but it was important not to build too much into the concept of God. "It's the concept of God as creator, primarily,""The thing that is "hard wired" into the human psyche, is NOT the concept of god. It's the concept of creation. When a human sees something with design (like a watch or an airplane) they know from experiencethat it was created. However, complexity alone doesn't constitute design, since natural occurring things can also be complex. Children often confuse complexity with design, so they falsely assume complex things such as trees must have a creator. This false "creator" is what they label "god". "A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. "Believing something doesn't make it true. It's wishful thinking. It can also be said that "humans have natural tendencies to believe they can win the lottery", based on how many play the lottery despite the odds of winning. I'm sorry, but my opponent has failed to provide evidence that proves his claim that"children are born believing that there is a God"He did provide evidence that children develop beliefs about god in later life, after they are already atheists. He also admitted that babies can't be born theists, due to the fact that "new borns are not developed to think about things or what to believe". The default position is the position you begin with. My opponent made a clear case that we begin as atheists and then develop into theists. NOTE: I did not provide sources, since the sources provided by my opponent actually proved my position that atheism is, in fact, the default position.

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!

As per the Structure determined in R1, I will only be using this speech to address Pro's case (his R1 comments). Again, I thank TMC for this debate, and hope that he and our readers are trying to keep an open mind as they read the debate. To begin deconstructing Pro's case, I will first address the BOP, then subdivide his arguments into portions, and lastly I will turn some of Pro's sources back against him.BURDEN OF PROOFSince this resolution is a question of fact, Pro bears the sole BOP. In other words, if he fails to prove his claim, he has lost. But, what exactly is the claim that Pro needs to prove? The resolution is referring to "homosexuality" as an entity. Therefore, to show one or two examples of where choice may exist is insufficient to affirm (though I sincerely doubt any such instance exist, regardless.) Therefore, the resolution can be interpreted in one of two ways: (A) homosexuality is always a choice, or (B) homosexuality is usually a choice. Given the former burden, it will be almost impossible for Pro to affirm given the weighty scientific evidence leveled against him. Given the latter burden--certainly a more charitable one--Pro will need to demonstrate with confidence that a majority of homosexuals choose to be homosexual.ARGUMENTSA. Ex-GaysPro suggests that there are presumably thousands of "ex-gays" now living as heterosexuals. Firstly, none of Con's sources substantiate this claim, and secondly, the rationale behind this is dubious at best.People who seek gay conversion therapy--I use the term "therapy" incredibly loosely--are clearly people seeking to blend in to "normal" heterosexual society. These individuals have a motive to claim that they have been cured. It seems more logical, given the medical and psychological evidence I offered last round, that individuals are simply suppressing there homosexual urges or remaining chaste altogether. That doesn't make them straight; it makes them homosexuals in denial. Additionally, for the same reasons people have motives to suppress their homosexuality, they have a motivation to lie on self-reporting surveys that are designed to gauge the efficaciousness of such "therapy."Let's review some background on these conversion programs: "In 2012, the Pan American Health Organization (the North and South American branch of the World Health Organization) released a statement cautioning against services that purport to 'cure' people with non-heterosexual sexual orientations as they lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people, and noted that the global scientific and professional consensus is that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation of human sexuality and cannot be regarded as a pathological condition. The Pan American Health Organization further called on governments, academic institutions, professional associations and the media to expose these practices and to promote respect for diversity. The World Health Organization affiliate further noted that gay minors have sometimes been forced to attend these 'therapies' involuntarily, being deprived of their liberty and sometimes kept in isolation for several months, and that these findings were reported by several United Nations bodies. Additionally, the Pan American Health Organization recommended that such practices be denounced and subject to sanctions and penalties under national legislation, as they constitute a violation of the ethical principles of health care and violate human rights that are protected by international and regional agreements." [1]"National health organizations in the United States have announced that there has been no scientific demonstration of conversion therapy's efficacy in the last forty years. They find that conversion therapy is ineffective, risky and can be harmful. Anecdotal claims of cures are counterbalanced by assertions of harm, and the American Psychiatric Association, for example, cautions ethical practitioners under the Hippocratic oath to do no harm to refrain from attempts at conversion therapy. Mainstream medical bodies state that conversion therapy can be harmful because it may exploit guilt and anxiety, thereby damaging self-esteem and leading to depression and even suicide...Mainstream health organizations critical of conversion therapy include the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Academy of Physician Assistants." [1]In light of these two excerpts, we now have reason to believe that "therapy" has no scientific evidence to back it up (and isn't recognized by most major medical organizations) and is potentially harmful. But the first of these two claims is the most relevant to the debate, so let's discuss it a bit more."A 2009 APA task force found that conversion therapies, despite being touted by religious organizations, have little evidence to back them up. A review of studies from 1960 to 2007 found only 83 on the topic, the vast majority of which did not have the experimental muscle to show whether the therapies achieved their stated goals." [2] Even former leaders of the conversion movement have acknowledged that their programs don't work, [3] and for every testimony that Pro might cite about the effectiveness of the programs, I can pull counterexamples, like this one. [4]It is also necessary to point out that "fluidity" is not the same as "choice." Choice implies an active decision; "fluid" transitions can occur passively and without any choice on the part of the individual. I agree that sexuality is "fluid," but not that it is "chosen."B. GeneticsAs per the BOP analysis, one example hardly proves anything. Moreover, I have provided ample analysis in my case that rebuts Pro's core assertions here.C. Pro's SourcesTurn No. 1Let's look at the Harvard.edu link first. The source writes: "In light of the ambiguity of the scientific research on sexuality, I will present a brief example where there is a clear genetic link to adult homosexuality. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is a hormonal disorder that causes an excess of male-specific hormones, known as androgens, while the fetus is developing in the womb (Pang et al. 1985; Witchel and Azziz 2010). CAH is most often caused by a mutation in a single gene, and genetic tests have existed for well over a decade (Van Ryzin 2009)." This source also notes that, "there is a loose consensus among geneticists, if not social scientists (Butler 1990; Kitzinger 1995), that there is some evidence for a genetic predisposition to homosexuality."Turn this source. This source substantiates the claim that homosexuality has a biological basis, strengthening the idea that it is not actually a choice.Non-uniqueNow turn your attention to the AmericanThinker.com link. "Even if we accepted, for argument's sake (which I do not accept), that McCaskill was "anti-gay" because she signed a petition, the case against Dixon is based purely on wild assumptions about sex. To fire Dixon, one must accept that gay men cannot stop themselves from having anal sex or engaging in fellatio." This article is referring to one's ability to choose to have sex. Of course, engaging in the act of sex is a choice; that is not what Pro and I are debating. We are debating whether attraction is a choice. Therefore, this argument does not clash with my case.Turn No. 2Next, 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 chosenP2. Homosexuality is a sexual desire for someone of the same sexC1. Homosexuality is not chosen And--Presto!--we have turned this point into a logically valid argument against Pro. RejectionWe should reject Pro's non-hyperlinked source since I cannot access it to assess its validity. Also, any sources cited in the comments should not be evaluated as they are an attempt to obviate the character limit of the debate.D. Food for ThoughtIf 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.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://news.yahoo.com...3 - http://time.com...4 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Thanks! I respectfully remind Pro that R3 is his last round to post arguments. I now turn over the floor to him...

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.

Is it therefore fair to describe homosexuality as abnormal. Of course, Technology negates the fundamentality of reproduction. So I would therefore assert that this is would seem to be an evolutionary certainty. Are evolutionary certainties therefore better defining principles than temporary conceptualities? Though concepts, Intangible as they are, Are real enough to the conceiver and as far as we know that is really all that matters. So where does the notion of abnormality lie within a constant confusion of collective thoughts and evolutionary certainty. I would propose that the realism of conceptuality is enough to affirm an individual judgement, Despite any weight of opposition. Therefore realistically rendering abnormality and/or normality for that matter, As not being truly definable.

I don't think we agree on anything. The largest and most reliable study on twins shows homosexuality is caused by mostly unique reactions to environmental factors including but not limited to sexual abuse, experimentation, childhood gender nonconformity, biological randomness, gay pornography, bad experiences with the opposite sex, child abuse, ect. Neither Genes nor Choice: Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors [Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114 (2011)] by Neil E. Whitehead8 According to Olantunji, homophobia is rooted in disgust, NOT fear. Fear and disgust are not the same. They come from two different places. As a homophobe myself, I'm not afraid of gays at all. My homophobia has nothing to do with "fear of the unknown" because what the largest twin studies show is what I assumed. Therefore, I knew more about the causes of homosexuality than people who weren't homophobes., in 2009, I was kicked out of an atheist forum because I said homosexuality could be caused by sexual abuse. Come to find out, I was correct all alone. I also assumed the causes of homosexuality may have something to do with childhood experiences. Come to find out, I was right about that too. I was always ahead of my time and I'm still ahead of my time. Homophobia is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior. Maybe in another 60 years, the rest of the world will catch up with me. Homosexuality is inherently bad because the human anatomy does not sit well with homosexual behavior. Homosexuality increases the risk of some of the most deadliest illnesses including but not limited to HIV, cancer and syphilis. Any behavior that could stop an STD from being eliminated and trigger another STD epidemic should be downplayed and never embraced. This should be common sense. I don't care what gays do with each other but homosexuality should most definitely be stigmatized. In other words, I think it should be legal but discouraged because of the health concerns. I think we should be treated like smoking.cigarettes. smoking is legal but is also discouraged and downplayed

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.

In Response to Two Men Not Being Able to Adequately Support a Teenage GirlAt this point, we are left with a simple problem in how someone interprets the results. The study found no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to the sexual orientation of a parent. However I do understand your point regarding “effectiveness.” I will leave this specific argument here and end by saying it comes down to the interpretation of “effectiveness.” I agree your claim does not undermine the study, but you bring up a plausible point of interest.In Response to Children Being BulliedAlthough I agree that children are bullied because their parents are gay, this point strays from our basis of argument. We are arguing “about a legal contract that recognizes the two [parents or people] as together.” From my belief, it would be absurd for the government to limit the right to marry due to children being bullied in school even though they would be bullied if the parents were not married. In addition, children are bullied for many other reasons.In Response to a Gay Parent Not Being Able to Relate to a ChildFor the sake of defending this point(and since we have both slightly strayed from the original point), I will continue with a rebuttal. However, I must note again that regardless of who is more correct or convincing here, it shouldn’t have anything to do with a government limiting a marriage. Gay people will form a relationship and possibly have a child under their supervision whether or not they are legally allowed to be noticed via a contract of marriage. In other words, when it all comes down to it, a government ban on gay marriage should not really affect this issue because gay people will still be in a relationship (they just won’t be legally noticed).Even if researched demonstrated that “gay men’s brains resemble those of straight women” and that homosexuality does have an effect on sexual preference, thoughts, and actions, it shouldn’t mean that a man is incapable of successfully raising a child. From my understanding, if it is true that a gay man’s brain resembles that of a straight woman (and according to your argument of course) it would be beneficial to a female child of the gay parents. As for a straight girl being raised by a gay woman, I return to my previous argument. Just because the woman might think differently doesn’t mean they can’t successfully raise the child. I would reconsider my stance on this matter if evidence successfully showed that the different thinking styles of gay parents actually had negative outcomes on how a child was raised.In Response to the Rebuttal of Legalizing Gay Marriage Not Harming Traditional Family ValuesI was simply attempting to make the point that gay marriage wouldn’t harm traditional family values. You stated that traditional marriage is of Christian origin. Now let’s turn to the United States where gay marriage is extremely controversial. The United States has no specific religion; everyone is free to practice their own religion. From a more rational standpoint, the government shouldn’t impose restrictions just because it is against the Christian religion when there is clearly no specific religion the country has chosen anyways.Proposition 8: California, United StatesI must direct our attention Proposition 8. In 2008, California voters voted to ban gay marriage with Proposition 8. This ban has lasted until very recently. I also use this as additional material for my previous point.“Same-sex marriage moved one step closer to the Supreme Court on Tuesday when a federal appeals court ruled California's ban unconstitutional, saying it serves no purpose other than to "lessen the status and human dignity" of gays” [1]. The Huffington Post wrote, “The court said it was unconstitutional because it singled out a minority group for disparate treatment for no compelling reason.Closing CommentsI ask the voters of this debate to consider only the factual information presented in this debate when forming an opinion. If you are biased toward one side completely (before the argument), please carefully review the argument and consider the points from both parties.Work Cited[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Thanks for the quick reply Cameron. ==Rebuttal== R1) Finger length My opponent merely confuses correlation and causation. Just because you're female and have a ring finger shorter than the middle finger does not automatically make you a lesbian, but it means you were exposed to more testosterone than normal in utero and are more likely to be a lesbian. Remember, the Breedlove study found that "'Every time you find a body marker that gives an indication of prenatal testosterone exposure, lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women." My opponent also doesn't answer the fruit fly study and the mice study that finds that homosexuality is genetically determined and thus not a choice. My opponent also doesn't answer the Bruce Bahemihl book which proves that homosexuality is widespread in nature, again reinforcing the idea that it is natural and genetic. R2) Homosexuality is uncommon/unpopular My opponent cites a statistic here that says that 3.5% of Americans are gay and 83% are Christian, and then he asserts, without evidence, that all (or most) Christians are anti-homosexual. There are a lot of problems with this. First, it is offensive that my opponent would argue that the government should appeal to the 83% rather than the 3.5%. It is firstly offensive to Christians who are not homophobic to imply that all Christians are adamantly anti-gay. It's secondly offensive for him to appeal to the tyranny of the majority – the same logic would justify denying rights to blacks, since they are only 12% of the population and whites were the majority. In addition, a more widely accepted statistic is that 1 in 10 people are gay. According to Gary J. Gates, a Senior Research Fellow at The Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy, "if you define "gay" as having same-sex attractions or behaviors, you do get higher proportions that are a bit closer to the one in ten figure" than if you define it as "do you self-identify as gay." The UCLA study is flawed because many homosexuals are closeted and may not admit to others or themselves that they are gay, but people are more willing to admit to same-sex attractions. Also, not every Christian opposes gay marriage. According to a 2011 Gallup poll, 53% of Americans support gay marriage. [1] According to Andrew Sullivan, the gay marriage campaign is "one of the most successful political and social campaigns in history;" gay marriage has gone from having 41 percentage points more people DISAPPROVE than approve to having 8 percentage points more people APPROVE than disapprove in only 15 years. [1] That's truly astonishing and shows how quickly times are changing. My opponent should get with the program. R2) Definition of marriage My opponent continues the argument from tradition: marriage was originally between a man and a woman. Definitions change. Marriage was ORIGINALLY between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman. The argument from tradition is a total failure. "President" once meant "that white guy that lives in the White House." R3) Civil Unions My opponent says that homosexuals should have equal rights in civil unions. However, this will never happen since as the Supreme Court said in Brown, separate is inherently unequal. As long as homosexuals are given a separate institution, equality will lag; state legislatures will drag their feet; the INS will still deport gay partners, etc. My opponent says, "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." No, this debate is about whether the judge should be in favor or against gay marriage. We are not debating about the definition of marriage – that debate could be settled rather quickly with a dictionary. For example, according to Princeton's Wordnet, marriage is "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)." No mention of man or woman. R4) ??????????? My opponent says, "Should a kid at age 7 have to decide to marry a male or female?" NO. A kid should never be getting married at age 7. In addition, homosexuality isn't a choice. Homosexuals are attracted to the same gender because of their genetic heritage which has either exposed them to a large burst of testosterone in utero or not. So the 7 year old doesn't decide who to be attracted to at age 7. When he hits puberty (around age 14), if his peepee goes up when he looks at girls, he is heterosexual and if it goes up when he looks at boys, he is homosexual, and if it goes up all the time, well . . . that's pretty much what puberty is. R5) Does the Christian God exist? My opponent says, "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." If he is not Christian, why is my opponent demanding we all live our lives based on what some fictional book tells us to do? The appeal to the majority is just ridiculous as well. If the majority of Americans believed in ghosts, that doesn't meant that we should model our lives after lessons learned from Ghostbusters. So whether God exists or the Bible is correct IS relevant since my opponent never proves why we should look to the Christian Bible as a model for our lives, especially when it advocates stoning disobedient children and seems to endorse rape and incest. R6) Filth My opponent says, "Telling gay couples that they do not deserve to be married does imply that there is something filthy and wrong about a gay couple." I'm glad my opponent admits to being a bigot. I assume that all non-homophobics will dock him the conduct point. My opponent says, "Telling gay couples they cannot marry is similar to telling a black man they cannot be white." EXACLTY. Back when whites held all the power and blacks had no rights, the whites told the blacks they "could not be white" since blacks had lower intelligence and other forms of eugenics research. The problem is, the opposite is true. A gay person cannot be straight. It's simply not possible. They can enter a "re-education" program and start lying to the world, but they cannot force themselves to be attracted to the opposite gender. A traditional "Christian" marriage was a marriage between two white people. At the very least, it was a marriage between two Christians. So by my opponent's definition, the U.S. should outlaw a marriage between a Jew and a Christian. The appeal to tradition is a bad one. R7) Stigma My opponent says, "Please explain to me why it is required that you need to be considered "married" to be equal." Well, let's look to an analogy. Let's pretend that my opponent has an IQ that is under 80, for the sake of this analogy. Now "traditionally" in this country, college degrees were only for the extremely elite and intelligent (when colleges were first around), but now they hand them out to pretty much anyone who is willing to pay. So to prevent the definition of "college degree" from being tainted, we say that for people who have an IQ under 80, they can still go to college and graduate, and they can have all the same rights as a normal college graduate, but if they ever refer to their college degree, they can't call it that; they have to refer to it as their "special token." Or to go with a slightly more crude and insulting analogy. Pretend my opponent has a penis that is only 2 inches long (or less). Now let's say women get together and decide that men with less than 2 inch penises can still have intercourse, but they can't call it sex, they have to call it "unsatisfying gyration." Imagine my opponent running to his friends when he loses his virginity and happily exclaiming, "Suzy and I just engaged in unsatisfying gyration." Words have power, and forcing someone to use a different word than the real one is insulting. The process and the adamancy with which we would deny certain people the use of the same word as everyone else is an obvious insult. It's like saying "here gay people, we know you're choosing to live in sin, you can have your little pretend marriage, but we won't let you call it that and sully the word marriage. So go play gay and be happy, but when you grow out of this phase, let us know and you can have the "real thing."" DROPPED ARGUMENTS 1. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that all people have equal protection under the law. Since a gay man cannot choose to marry a straight woman, since homosexuality is not a choice, gays do not have equal rights to marriage. Banning gay marriage violates our Constitution. 2. Separate is inherently unequal. Anti-homosexual advocates will never grant equal rights to gays under civil unions. The only true way to grant equal rights is for the Supreme Court to recognize gay marriage as being mandated by the 14th Amendment. 3. Utilitarianism. Allowing gay marriage generates jobs and revenue for the state, with no downsides. My opponent drops the study that in countries that allow gay marriage, traditional marriage rates have remained unchanged. 4. God doesn't exist and the Bible is wrong, contradictory, and advocates evil acts. It should not be used as a moral guide. It should be clear from the dropped arguments that this debate is over. Vote pro. [1] http://www.patheos.com...