Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

The notion that Disney's Frozen is intended to indoctrinate children with a particular sexual orientation is misguided, as sexual orientation is not a learned behavior but an innate characteristic. One cannot be taught to be gay; it is a part of who they are from birth. Additionally, attributing this to the work of the devil is unfounded, as the existence of the devil is a matter of religious belief, not empirical fact. Let's apply critical thinking to these issues.

I dont see the connection between proper bathroom etiquette and being a judge of anothers ability to determine their idea of gender and or sexuality. To let a child choose their children is to let a child choose his favorite pair of shoes. He still has to wear what ever pair is apropriate for the ocassion but even though the fuzzy dinnosaur slippers are his favorite, He still can notnwear them to school. Anyone of any age should be able to choose their gender. What society accepts is a different argument. I can be a e year old boy in my head but if my vagina makes me a female to society then their is no need to make any further determinations. Everyones rights are protected. As well as everyones emotional and identity control.

On the surface it may appear that by the virtue of choosing the definitions I have painted myself into a corner. After all the basis of evolution is propagate ones genes successfully for the next generation. Someone who is homosexual, and not bisexual, wouldn't be likely to have children if they adhered to their homosexual desires. Obviously this should create a selective pressure for micro-evolution, for creationists, or macro-evolution, for evolutionists, and thus should represent a small fraction of the population. Lets take genetic disease, like cystic fibrosis, as an example. CF is in about 70,000 children and adults worldwide[1]. With a world population of nearly 7 billion CF represents about 0.001% of the world population. In the US it occurs in about 1 in 3400 births or 0.029%[4]. Contrasted with homosexuality that represents anywhere from 1% to 10% of the population[2]. Clearly, homosexuality isn't being weeded out by Natural Law, and for that reason it appears, on the surface, to violate Natural Law. However, this is only the case when you look at evolution as only affecting individual, and not a group, evolution. Lets take ants as an example, specifically the siafu. Nearly all workers, and soldiers are sterile. None of them will ever breed, or pass on their individual genetic information. However, all of those sterile ants exist to to preserve the queen, and find that suicidal sausage fly that will fly into their horde to have its wings ripped off so that it can mate with their queen[3]. It is to the queens evolutionary advantage to have a large number of sterile children so that the group may live. This is called social evolution, and is a part of the evolutionary process. So there is a case to be made were homosexuals who don't have children may actually be a natural part of the evolutionary process in spite of the fact that they would not, under normal conditions, breed. Looking back at the rate of homosexuality it is highly probably that most people have a homosexual relative either in their immediate, or extended, family. Lets take a probably situation a family might experience. In the unfortunate event that one of the sets of parents dies leaving behind orphaned children, what would be the best solution to ensure those children survive? If one of the dead parents had siblings who themselves had their own children to take care of they might be able to, but at the risk of their own direct children not be as likely to survive due to a lack of resources to care for all of them. You could leave the childrens fate up to chance where the State may, or maynot, be able to find adequate care. However, a more optimal solution would be for one of those parents to have a homosexual sibling who has no children of their own. The children would then be kept within the family, and not pose an excess burden on the survival of existing children. It becomes the best interest of the Grandparents that a few of their children are homosexual to help ensure the survival of their Grandchildren. Thus homosexuality is in coherence with Natural Law, and not unnatural. [1] . http://www.cff.org... [2] . http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... [3] Holldobler, Bert; Wilson, Edward O. (1990). The Ants [4] . http://www.thoracic.org...

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.

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

"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 disagree that it can be passed through DNA neither of my parents are gay. yes my mother experimented, but never gay. and i'm a full on lesbian. i know people who were adopted by a lesbian couple but yet WILL never be with a girl and cant even look at a girl that way. God says he loves all of his children. even the ones who are different, outcast, and over saw. god says he makes his children to his image. And its not like i chose to be this way. i cant help who i love. love should be love no matter what the gender as long as the two people are happy. why does everyone else care who people are laying in bed with every night. saying gay relationships should never exist or should against the law is the same as saying it about straight relationships. yes i admit our generation is known for how many gay people there are. but thats because we are tired of hiding. i mean while jesus was there in the manger there where lesbians somewhere us fulled with joy because of the word their savior has come. they where their waiting to praise him. and do you think he just rejected them? i think not. jesus and god dont care about our sexual preference as long as we believe in and love him and let him guide us to our purpose.

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

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.

Burden of proof will be upon Con, my opponent 51%. This is due to the nature of morals, actions are considered moral until proven otherwise. Just as a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.StructureRound one Acceptance and definitionsRound two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument yet.Round three rebuttals respond directly to opponent's round two.Round four defense respond directly to opponent's round three.Definitions, use common definitions unless otherwise agreed upon.Sex"2.a. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions: How do you determine the sex of a lobster?" [0]Gay "1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." [1]Marriage "1.a. A legal union between two persons that confers certain privileges and entails certain obligations of each person to the other, formerly restricted in the United States to a union between a woman and a man." [2]Thanks in advance for accepting the debate. Previous debate for reference. [3]Sources.0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...3. http://www.debate.org...

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...


Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

The debate over sexual orientation and its origins often circles back to the concept of a "gay gene." The assertion is that, like the commenter suggests, if homosexuality is innate and not a choice, it could be linked to genetics. This theory implies that individuals are born with their sexual orientation, and it is not a result of their upbringing or personal decisions. Despite the ongoing search for definitive proof, the scientific community largely agrees that sexual orientation is not a choice but a part of one's inherent identity. This perspective is supported by various studies and articles that discuss the biological underpinnings of homosexuality. (Sources: http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.time.com... http://www.newscientist.com... http://www.livescience.com...) The debate's opponent has not provided any counterarguments, effectively conceding the point that sexual orientation is likely determined at birth.

Let's be proper here. Everyone is either born a male or a female. You can get that changed later in life, that's up to you. But, the definition of male is: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring. While the definition of female is: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes. Basically, you either have something that fertilizes an egg, or you have the eggs. You can't have both, and you can't have none. I also have a weird feeling that everything you say is going to be opinionated, with no real factual evidence to support your statements, in which case I will leave this debate.

I provided logical arguments for the claim that homosexuals have sexual attraction for the same sex. I argued that sexual attraction is not chosen by appealing to each of our individual experiences of our sexual attraction and the fact that we can't change our attraction through our will. This argument has not been contested by my opponent. "we can't change our attraction through our will"Says who? Who told you that, Con? You keep making these sweeping claims without offering a scintilla of scientific evidence. Your supposed "logical arguments are entertaining, but why can't you grasp they're not enough? Why cant you grasp that if there was any validity to them you'd be able to present scientific cites? Do you even know what a scientific cite is, Con? "Well you are claiming that gays can choose who they are attracted to. This is a claim and you must back it up."I never said, implied, or suggested gays can choose who they are attracted to. Are you resorting to outright lying now? I said there is no scientitic evidence to support your claim that gays can't choose who they're attracted -- that the claim is LGBT junk science. In otherwords, you can't support your claim, Con, so what you do now is engage in is chicanery. There is no scientific evidence supporting your claim that gays can't choose who they're attracted to. Please stop making the claim or present evidence to support it. It's really that simple. Is Anal Sex is DangerousHonestly I takes this argument as seriously as the claims that masturbation will sterilize you. There are health risks for anal sex just like there are health risks for real sex, sky diving, running, or medications. However, if you are careful, you can reduce risks.Some steps that can be taken is use plenty of lubricants to avoid tissue tearing, don't do oral sex after anal sex, relax before anal sex like take a warm bath, stop if anal sex is painful, make sure the anus is clean before anal sex, see your doctor if anything usual starts happening, and be gentle when doing it (1).500,000 have died from anal sex, gay males make up 75% of all new HIV cases, all this and you would have us believe male-to-male anal sex is no more dangerous than straight sex? Are you serious? And why do you believe in the LGBT notion of "safe-sex?" If male-to-male anal sex can be made safe, why are gay males still dropping like flies?Honestly, you need to stop repeating your LGBT talking points and check out the scientific literiture. Nothing you claim is orginal; all of it is warmed-over LGBT talking points. And then you so blantantly ignore the scientific evidence I present. Earlier I linked you to a paper by Dr. John Diggs. The paper was a in-depth study of "The Hazards of Gay Sex." One of the points made is that with frequent anal sex the anal/rectum subsystem is compromised. It becomes dysfunctional, the seal is eroded and these men must start wearing diapers.Diggs goes on to explain that the anus was not designed to withstand the trauma produced by anal sex pounding. This is yet another dirty little secret the LGBT community don't want the public to know -- anal sex causes anal/rectal dysfunction.Gay Marriages WorkI have already cited statistics that gay marriages are almost half as likely to end in divorce with an annual 1.1% divorce rate compared to a 2% divorce rate for strait couples. All my opponent has done is provide an uncited reference to ten gay couples that have gotten divorced. That is a really bad sample.No, gay marriages don't work. And that's because gay males are the most promiscuous creatures on the planet and find it intolerable. Gay culture is based on promiscurity, not traditional marriage ideals. Gay bars, bath houses, Fire Island, the Greenich Village Docks, the gay porn industry, gay escort services, Even "The Advocate", the national gay news paper, are all a celebration of gay sex. You don't know this, Con, because you've never heard of these places. Likewise, you've never read Guy Rotolo or Randy Shiltz. You're here parroting LGBT talking points you've never researched.Young, fast track gays want nothing to do with same-sex marriage. This explains why after ten years of it in Massachusetts 95% of gay males remain unmarried. It's the older gays who want it -- the gays nobody wants. What younger gays want is access to boys -- that's why they're for same-sex marriage: they know once it becomes law it gets them into the schools where they can recruit.

Being gay does not determine someone's morality. It is our actions with intent that decide who we are. Tell me, how are you not as immoral as them? When do we find the morality that sets us free? http://www.debate.org... Thank you

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

I am somewhat confused, as the title of the debate is significantly different than the substance of your opening statement. However, since the issue of gay marriage does hinge somewhat upon the issues you raised in your opening argument, I think it makes an appropriate beginning. For the sake of clarity, though, the topic isn't whether or not gay marriages should be legalized, but whether or not homosexuality is morally acceptable. Legality is a secondary issue. Please tell me if I'm mistaken. I would like to begin by saying that I am an angry and violent person. I was born that way, it wasn't a choice. Therefore, it's okay. Don't you dare judge me for it, it's just natural. The above paragraph is an illustration of the fact that something cannot be justified as acceptable simply by virtue of being "natural." In addition to "homosexuality," the animal kingdom displays a number of other behaviors, including polygamy, homicide, patricide, fratricide, incest, and rape. By your reasoning, all of the above should be considered acceptable because they are "natural." This is, of course, absurd. Since you have quoted scripture in order to condemn those who would dare to say that homosexuality is wrong, and since you express outrage that some people would "distort" scripture to do so, I assume that you have some respect for the Bible as a moral compass. This is an excellent starting point, as neither "nature" nor pure reason serve as a legitimate basis for a moral standard. First, I am not judging anyone. I have no idea what kind of person you are, or of the contents of your heart are. I do, however, know that homosexuality is immoral, based on the same Bible you quoted. Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Romans 1:24-47 "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 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: 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." In the first verse, we see explicitly that homosexuality is an abomination. In the second, we see much the same thing, except that this verse essentially calls homosexuality a mental illness, and points to venereal diseases as confirmation of the immorality of that lifestyle. It may also be a prophetic reference to the spread of AIDs. Whatever the case, the message is clear: homosexuality is wrong. Notwithstanding, there are MANY other sins described in the Bible, and I would by lying if I told you that I was not guilty of many, if not most of them. The Bible says that he who is guilty of breaking one of the commandments is guilty of the whole (James 2:10.) In other words, we are all equally guilty. However, none of this serves as a justification for sin. We are told to repent (and be baptized) for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38.) The word repent means to turn away from a current path or direction. We see this principle when Jesus forgave the adulteress who was brought to her to be stoned, when he said "go and sin no more." What is important to remember is that what we often see as "rules" and "commandments" in the Bible are really there for our benefit. While most people erroneously base their morality on whether or not a particular act causes other people harm, the morality of the Bible was given by God to ensure not only that we don't harm others, but that we don't harm ourselves, and that we live happy, fulfilled lives as a result. The point of these verses isn't to condemn people like yourself to hell, but to give you the opportunity to turn away from these behaviors to your own benefit. You may reply that you don't want to change, that you're happy just the way you are, to which I would reply that nobody WANTS to change. It is often a difficult and painful process. However, we must simply have faith that God knows what's best for us, and that if we surrender a fault or sinful behavior, God will replace it with a lasting peace and joy which no amount of worldly pleasure can rival. Now that I've touched on the Biblical side of things, I will return to the scientific side. I thought I would point out that two of the sources for which you provided links actually weaken your case. The second link, states the exact opposite of what you're trying to prove, saying that homosexuality, contrary to the view presented by the gay and lesbian community, is not natural. The third link states that "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation." In other words, for every link you provided which says homosexuality is natural, I could, if I had the time, find one which challenges that hypothesis. There is no scientific consensus on the issue. There are, however, at least one very sound scientific reason to believe that homosexuality is not natural, at least not entirely. This is the force of natural selection. Natural selection, as I'm sure we're all aware, is differential reproductive success (At least, that's the definition given in my biology text book from last quarter.) Obviously if an organism doesn't pass on its genetic information, that information will disappear from a population's gene pool. It should be equally obvious that while homosexuals can and often do reproduce (although I think the number that do is diminishing somewhat now that people aren't as afraid to "come out of the closet as it were) their differential reproductive success is heavily outweighed by heterosexuals. Thus, if a "gay gene" does or ever did exist, it would have or will disappear from the gene pool in very, very short order. Some have proposed that a homosexual gene could survive in recessive form in heterozygous individuals. Unfortunately, this will still result in the elimination of the gay allele over time, as every instance of a homozygous dominant individual will be selected against, resulting in a drop of the total frequency of the allele until only one individual possesses the recessive trait. Thus, not only does is the issue over whether homosexuality is natural or not irrelevant to the question of its morality, there are sound scientific reasons to believe that it cannot possibly be natural. It is more probably (although there is an ongoing debate in the scientific community) an abnormality, the result of environmental factors. This view of homosexuality as pathological is supported by the self-destructive nature of homosexual activity, which severely increases the risk of AIDS. If it is pathological, and the likelihood is high, then regardless of how loving homosexual parents may be, it cannot be considered responsible to allow homosexual couples to adopt. Forgive me, but if God had wanted homosexuals to have kids... Finally we arrive at whether or not homosexual marriages should be legalized. Once again, if homosexuality is pathological, writing a law giving them the ability to marry one another would be a bit like writing a law allowing schizophrenics to marry each other.

On the surface it may appear that by the virtue of choosing the definitions I have painted myself into a corner. After all the basis of evolution is propagate ones genes successfully for the next generation. Someone who is homosexual, and not bisexual, wouldn't be likely to have children if they adhered to their homosexual desires. Obviously this should create a selective pressure for micro-evolution, for creationists, or macro-evolution, for evolutionists, and thus should represent a small fraction of the population. Lets take genetic disease, like cystic fibrosis, as an example. CF is in about 70,000 children and adults worldwide[1]. With a world population of nearly 7 billion CF represents about 0.001% of the world population. In the US it occurs in about 1 in 3400 births or 0.029%[4]. Contrasted with homosexuality that represents anywhere from 1% to 10% of the population[2]. Clearly, homosexuality isn't being weeded out by Natural Law, and for that reason it appears, on the surface, to violate Natural Law. However, this is only the case when you look at evolution as only affecting individual, and not a group, evolution. Lets take ants as an example, specifically the siafu. Nearly all workers, and soldiers are sterile. None of them will ever breed, or pass on their individual genetic information. However, all of those sterile ants exist to to preserve the queen, and find that suicidal sausage fly that will fly into their horde to have its wings ripped off so that it can mate with their queen[3]. It is to the queens evolutionary advantage to have a large number of sterile children so that the group may live. This is called social evolution, and is a part of the evolutionary process. So there is a case to be made were homosexuals who don't have children may actually be a natural part of the evolutionary process in spite of the fact that they would not, under normal conditions, breed. Looking back at the rate of homosexuality it is highly probably that most people have a homosexual relative either in their immediate, or extended, family. Lets take a probably situation a family might experience. In the unfortunate event that one of the sets of parents dies leaving behind orphaned children, what would be the best solution to ensure those children survive? If one of the dead parents had siblings who themselves had their own children to take care of they might be able to, but at the risk of their own direct children not be as likely to survive due to a lack of resources to care for all of them. You could leave the childrens fate up to chance where the State may, or maynot, be able to find adequate care. However, a more optimal solution would be for one of those parents to have a homosexual sibling who has no children of their own. The children would then be kept within the family, and not pose an excess burden on the survival of existing children. It becomes the best interest of the Grandparents that a few of their children are homosexual to help ensure the survival of their Grandchildren. Thus homosexuality is in coherence with Natural Law, and not unnatural. [1] . http://www.cff.org... [2] . http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... [3] Holldobler, Bert; Wilson, Edward O. (1990). The Ants [4] . http://www.thoracic.org...

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

Romans 1:27 says "And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved." However just a few pages past that, and probably the same page in most bibles it says in Romans 3:23 "For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard." You don't become a Christian by being sinless. The bible states this is impossible. You become a Christian by accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior and asking for forgiveness for your sins. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." You can be a homosexual, serial killer or any other deplorable thing in the world and be a Christian, because Jesus has been sacrificed in your name.

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!

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.