Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice.

Clarifications: My opponent seems to be clinging to an amateurish definition of homosexuality, found on *Wikipedia*, instead of accepting the medical consensus. The medical definition is the one that matters in this debate, and my opponent's refusal to acknowledge it is simply a tactic to tilt the debate in his favor. The aim of the debate is to confirm or deny the statement at hand. Both debaters should provide definitions that are relevant to the statement, and it should be up to the audience to decide which definition is more appropriate. Moreover, this debate is primarily about being gay (homosexual), not just about the term *homosexuality*. So, even if *homosexuality* is defined as a romantic or sexual attraction to individuals of the same sex, the fact remains that being a homosexual simply means having those feelings, not necessarily acting on them. One can be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc., without ever having sex; it's all about how one's brain is wired (what it is programmed to respond to).

Rebuttal: 2. Suicide My opponent starts with, "Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all." This is a gross misrepresentation. If there is a gay gene (which numerous scientists believe exists), it means that infants are born with a predisposition to homosexuality. It is the *genes* and other *biological determinants* that influence sexual orientation. In fact, as my sources have highlighted (which my opponent has failed to challenge), scientists have now discovered various connections and patterns related to homosexuality that explain why the "gay gene" can and does get passed on and to whom. Furthermore, "Sexual health goes beyond the absence of sexual pathology. The anatomy, gender, and function of the human body form the basis of identity. The realization of the sexual self as an integral part of identity begins in INFANCY with the attitudes about the physical body" [1]. So, it is clear that my opponent's assertion that infants lack sexuality is incorrect, and my argument that infants do not have the mental or physical capacity to commit suicide stands.

3. Seclusion My opponent writes, "How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with?" In other words, my opponent is suggesting that if one is not having sex with anyone, then they do not have a sexual orientation... so they aren't gay or straight. This is categorically FALSE. Consider your own sexual orientation to determine the validity of this statement

The bible clearly states in both verses Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 that the practice of homosexual relations and relationships are considerd detestable acts and an abominaion. Anyone who apposes my claim can debate over this controversial point of view.

Sexuality, there are lot but here are a few, Heterosexual-someone who is attracted to those of the opposite gender Homosexual-someone who is attracted to those of the same se Bisexual-Someone who is attracted both genders Why are the last two mentioned so much and hated? Bullies, that's all, homophobes. A homophobe is someone who has a dislike, fear, or prejudice against homosexuals. Usually because of religious reasons. People like infamous westboro baptist church who are highly hateful on homos and America as a whole. It begs the one question, why is it such a big deal? You are no more then the guy bullying the fat kid on the playground. I feel that the reason people hate homophobes is because they have nothing better to do in life. Research shows people who are racist or homophobic, or anything involving a prejudice against anyone actually decreases your lifespan, because of cardiovascular problems. I've looked everywhere on the Internet for answers telling me why it's wrong and not one mention a good reason, the bible is not a credible source because if religion is why, does your book not clearly state "you shall not judge because only Jesus can judge" the living and the dead, so why all the hypocrisy? If you can honestly can tell me being a homosexual is a choice, you yourself would have to be a closeted bisexual because they are the only ones who can clearly state that. There are people who seriously don't give the waitress a tip at the restaurant because they have to write a note that says "I'm sorry but I cannot tip you because I do not agree with your lifestyle" that is disgusting. You don't not tip someone because of their lifestyle but on service. You have no right to control other peoples' lives. Homosexuals don't control your life, so you don't control theirs. The fact that homophobia can actually KILL you is bad enough is it not? What happens is another persons bed is not your buissness. The fact that apparently criminals used to get more rights then homosexuals was disgusting. Why do we worry about these people so much? What about criminals? And the fact that homophobes immediately say you're gay for defending their rights and,they are just plain ignorant. The new children of the next generation were interviewed about a video about homosexuality, kids from around 5-13 years of age. Looking at them, children, are way more mature then some adults. They are saying its okay, because it is, humans, all of them, should be loved, pursue happiness and love their life to the fullest. The fact that LGB people of young age have a 4 times more likely suicide rate in homophobic areas, confused teens have 3 times more likely chance in homophobic areas. Or the fact the 19.3% of homocides involve some form of sexual bias, that is plain gross and disgusting. It makes me happy to hear that they're are some decent people who agree with me. When will the U.S. Truly be a free country?

Thanks for the challenge. If we assume that God is everything and everything is God, then we should assume that God will experience all that is contained in him/her. Including what we call "homosexuality" Now, everything in creation exists in polarities of positive and negative (Yang/Yin) When brough together, they function as one complete system. Yin and Yang exist in everything to a degree, but are most commonly differentiated by the names "male" and "female". Men are primarily composed of Yang energy, while women are primarily composed of Yin Energy. Man and Woman together is the natural order of the universe. But since this natural order has been altered (for many reasons), Man and Woman, generally, do not properly function in their respective roles. Because of this, many people assume an inverse Yin/Yang majority, and gravitate toward what most call "homosexuality" This "habit" can also be passed genetically through DNA, as DNA records all its life experiences. When Children are born, they assume a certain frequency from their biological Mother and Father. DNA frequencies are amplified by habit. If a "homosexual" habit was strong in one or both of the parents (no matter how suppressed or hidden from the public) then that child will naturally assume that potential. However, the "habit" can only be form if the child is encouraged toward it (no matter how subtle or unknowing). In essence, God will always, as stated, experience itself in as many ways as possible. But Universe order can only come from the compatible cooperation of POLARITIES. In this case, Man and Woman. That is how "God" continues itself

"My opponent wants me to refute every single point given but he refuted his whole case and therefore submitting the debate. I will explain, my opponent made some very interesting comments or quotes in his second round. I quote, "there is little controversy in the rabbinic tradition on the meaning of Leviticus 18:22. While it is translated in various ways, the basic meaning has always seemed pretty clear: "And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman, it is an abomination." The verse prohibits a man from lying with a male in such a way that his penis is engulfed in the other man"s body. Consequently, for millennia the tradition understood that Leviticus 18:22 prohibited anal intercourse between men and Leviticus 20:13 reiterated and punished the crime with death by stoning." This quote totally shows that the Bible considers male and male intercourse(which is homosexuality) a sin. This refutes the resolution alone, therefore giving me the win." This is faulty logic, notice my opponent's trick, watch this, he quotes my argument with this ""And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman, it is an abomination." The verse prohibits a man from lying with a male in such a way that his penis is engulfed in the other man"s body. Consequently, for millennia the tradition understood that Leviticus 18:22 prohibited anal intercourse between men and Leviticus 20:13 reiterated and punished the crime with death by stoning." Which I totally agree with, Anal sex is prohibited in The Bible, but then my opponent uses either trickery or faulty logic when he says, "This quote totally shows that the Bible considers male and male intercourse(which is homosexuality) a sin. This refutes the resolution alone, therefore giving me the win."" It's faulty as The Bible never condemns Homosexual Orientation or any other type of sexual acts(Oral sex, kissing, relationships, etc), my opponent clearly agrees that Male-Male Anal sex is prohibited but then adds either due to trickery or faulty logic that it is a condemnation of Homosexuality, Anal sex is not a homosexual thing, anyone Heterosexual or Homosexual can have anal sex, if YHWH wanted to condemn Homosexuality He would have clearly, however He was very specific with Lyings of woman as demonstrated. His logic is analogous to one saying that ALL Heterosexual sex is condemned because sex during menstration(Leviticus 18) is condemned, no only sex during menstration is condemned, if YHWH wanted to condemn all Heterosexual behavior He'd clearly do it(like He condemned incest, Leviticus 18), likewise YHWH only condemned Anal sex regardless of orientation, if He wanted to condemn Homosexual He would clear do so. So due to 1 The Opponent cowardly refusing to refute every point 2, using either ignorant, faulty or deceiving logic The opponent loses on The Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 passage, unless he can throughly with no excuse refute point by point with no logic such as, "Anal sex is condemned, therefore Homosexuality is condemned", same logic I can use is, "Sex during menstration is condemned, therefore Heterosexuality is condemned", no only a certain activity. "My opponent seems concerned about just female homosexuality. That can remain his concern but all I must do is show that the Bible considers homosexuality as defined in round one, a sin, for male or females. But that was the reason my opponent ignored Romans 1:26-27" I didn't ignore it at all, if anyone reads my previous argument they will see that I reached the character limit(8000) On Romans 1:26-27, This video proves the point The Whole context of Romans 1 is needed, 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God"s invisible qualities"his eternal power and divine nature"have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God"s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. 1, as we see, Romans 1:21-27 that people committed Idolatry, and they "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.(Romans 1:23) Therefore, "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"who is forever praised. Amen." and BECAUSE of this, "26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Townsley notes that other early writers, possibly including Chrysostom, reject the 'lesbian' hypothesis, specifically, Ambrosiaster, Didymus the Blind and Clement of Alexandria.[16] - Wikipedia 'My opponent fatally wounded himself by agreeing that the Bible condemns male and male anal sex, which is homosexuality defined by our terms. " This is a cheap shot as if I were fatally wounded my opponent opponent would be capable of refuting every point made and not use illogical says as, " the Bible condemns male and male anal sex, which is homosexuality defined by our terms. " Anal sex is certainly not Homosexuality, it's a Specific sexual activity that even Heterosexuals could commit! If we use his logic we can say that since the Specific act of sex during menstration is condemned(Leviticus 18), all Heterosexual is condemned, obviously that isn't the case. Also if he contends that Homosexual Anal sex is condemned then he contends that it isn't a sin for Heterosexuals to have anal sex, however if my opponent contends that Both Heterosexual male to male and Homosexual male to male anal sex are condemned, then himself has fatally wounded himself and admits that this doesn't condemn Homosexuality but just anal sex is general, Romans 1:26-28 was explain and my opponent will need to try again.

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

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

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

Since it is a 3 round debate, I think it will be fair enough only to out forward both my arguments and rebuttals in round 2 itself so that I dont end with a rebuttal in last round and my opponent gets to rebut me in round 3,where I will put a conclusion only.Now initialy I did misunderstand the topic thinking that my opponent thought environment was the only factor for someone being homosexual. However, I strongly think that homosexuality does originate from biology and biology only.Now, my opponent and I are on the same page when it comes to biology as a factor for sexuality. Therefore I do not to reinforce arguments to show that biology is a factor for sexuality. However I need to show that environment does not play a role in determining sexuality which I will be doing by showing events in which someone turns heterosexual in 'pro homosexual environment' or vice versa and putting rebuttals to opponents arguments.ARGUMENT Sexuality in animals - Homosexuality is very strongly observed in animal kingdom. Although even animals are social beings,are there environmental factors which contribute to homosexual behaviour? Complex social structures such as those in humans being society does not exist for animals, why then, there are queer animals??http://www.bidstrup.com... REBUTTAL1. Judges may note that the link shows the trends on sexuality. How the physical factors lead to variation in sexuality has no mention whatsoever. People in cities are more likely to be homosexual. It is beyond doubt that personal freedom of expression is more appreciated and prevalent in cities than in small towns or villages. It is very much obvious that people living in places other than cities will find it easy to reveal their sexuality. There is no proof to show that there are less homosexual people in non city places,it only means that people living in non city are afraid to express their sexuality. Animals regardless of the kind of place they live will the show the same amount of variation of sexuality,be it zoo or wild. http://www.sfgate.com...(zoo and wild refers to change in environment) Had it been that the penguins initially turned homosexual in the event of lack of female counterparts,they woud not have refused the offer of a female who are abundant in wild.Family issues 'Having a family issue is a reason for sexuality variation.' Judges may note that how family issues change change sexual behaviour. The link provided only gives a statistical account. Statistics does not give reasons to the graphs it only shows graphs. http://www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk...2. Younger men from Sambia tribe fellate other male as a rite of passage http://www.orijinculture.com...It may be seen that the 'homosexual' behaviour is only a ritual. The people AFTER the passage DONOT ENGAGE IN ANY FORM OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR. If social factors had such a role in sexuality, many of the tribesmen would have turned gay.3. If any kind of behavious is created by environmental factors, or society, they should be able to be healed using therapy like the one that has been used for rape victims and criminals. If being gay has a social/environmental factor, then therapy of any kind must change them into heterosexuals or 'reduce the amount of homosexuality' http://www.hrc.org...http://www.drdoughaldeman.com...http://www.livescience.com...

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...


Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Resolved: Homosexual orientation is not determined at birth but is influenced by environmental factors.

Twin studies, which estimate the genetic influence on traits through concordance rates, suggest a weak genetic component in homosexuality. In a large Australian study involving 33,000 participants, the concordance rates for homosexuality were only 11% for men and 14% for women, indicating a low genetic contribution [1]. The majority of homosexual orientation appears to be shaped by environmental factors, as evidenced by the significant role of non-shared environments (54-84%) in influencing sexual orientation [2]. Moreover, the genetic contribution might be overestimated, as shared environmental factors are often misclassified as non-shared [3].

Children raised by gay parents tend to have higher rates of nonheterosexual orientations, supporting the environmental influence on sexual orientation. A comprehensive review of 150 studies revealed that children of nonheterosexual parents were more likely to engage in same-sex sexual behaviors and identify as nonheterosexual compared to those raised by heterosexual parents [4]. A 1996 study found that 47% of children raised by homosexuals reported non-exclusive heterosexuality, compared to 97% of the general population who are exclusively heterosexual [5]. Another study showed that 27% of children raised by homosexuals identified as homosexual [6]. Sociologist Walter Schumm's research confirmed these findings by analyzing additional data from books, other studies, and anthropological datasets [7].

Reorientation therapy, which aims to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, has shown some success. Studies from 1974 and 2000 reported significant changes in sexuality for 40% and 33% of participants, respectively [8]. A 2002 analysis found that 79% of those who underwent therapy became more heterosexual than the control group [9]. Robert Spitzer's 2001 study, involving 200 respondents, revealed that many individuals reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation lasting at least five years [10]. A survey of 822 individuals who received reorientation therapy showed that 68% of participants perceived themselves as exclusively homosexual before counseling, but only 13% did so afterward, with 34% describing themselves as exclusively heterosexual [11].

Environmental factors, such as social setting, urban birthplace, and parental absence, play a role in the development of homosexuality. Being raised by a gay parent

Thank you for accepting, Commondebator. Let's get some things straight - (do NOT take that the way I think you will)! Hebrews 13:4 says "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage be be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. " This means that God is perfectly fine with marriage, but the immoral parts in it will be judged by the one who created marriage. If a Christian believes in (God's) Word, or surely they believe the simple sections, they know that God invented marriage itself. I always say that, after all, the Bible is the only easy communication conveyance from Him to us, and if we do not trust that then why do we trust God at all? Therefore we must take the Bible seriously and it should be trusted by all who believe in Jesus. Secondly you must remember (and I hope you agree, if you yourself are a Christian) that God loves sinners but hates and condemns the sin. It is not necessarily our fault that we were born with that sinful nature and we aren't perfect. But you also need to consider very carefully realizing how if we know God says homosexuality is part of our sinful nature (a sin) and we ignore it, than we are ignoring how God designed and wants us to be. As Christians. .. 1) we accept that God's Word is the truth 2) we realize what God says about homosexuality 3) we either predominantly choose to go against 1 and 2 or with them But if we decide to disagree with 1&2, are we really Christians? If you believe that the Bible is God's Word yet keep practicing homosexuality, you are not going with God's plan by not seeking forgiveness (if you are, you're not trying to be forgiven because you are still doing the sin). [4] You might believe in God but do you truly believe that He's a tri-une God (Trinity)? If that's the case than you are a theist, not a Christian. This is mainly why I say a homosexual contradicts the Christian values and morality. Matthew 19:2-9 says "And large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause? " He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. " [1] This is not only testimony to what Jesus said about divorcing, but also how 'from the very start of humankind God made them male and female,' and that the only reason for marriage at that time was because of love between a man and woman. In that time, they would most likely start a family--and the marriage commitment was larger because of that. Nowadays teens are having sex outside of marriage, marriage is out of plain love not dedication, and most people do NOT believe the two of you will become one once you are married. The list goes on. Genesis unveils marriage God"s way. Perceiving man"s need of a loving companion, God decreed, "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Gen. 2:18). So He pronounced His plan: "I will make him an help fit for him" (2:18). God first prepared the man for his wife, creating a deficiency only she could fill: "The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and"took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh" (2:21). Then He prepared the wife for her man, carefully forming her to be "meet" (2:18), or "suitable" and "just right", for him in every way: "The rib"made he a woman" (2:22). Afterwards He presented the wife to her man: "And brought her unto the man" (2:22). Delighted, man proclaimed God"s provision perfect: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (2:23). The first couple then adapted to their new living arrangement: "They were both naked"and were not ashamed" (2:25). Satisfaction and children followed. This was marriage God"s way. It was heterosexual, not homosexual; monogamous, not polygamous; lifelong, not temporary. It was pure, without adultery; faithful, without abandonment; loving, without abuse. It was also fruitful, not futile, fulfilling God"s primary purpose: "Be fruitful, and multiply" (Gen. 1:28). [2] Finally, Leviticus 18:22 says "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin. " This proves it is contradictory to believe the Bible is God's Word (be a Christian) AND practice homosexuality. [3] God says gay marriage is sin. God hates sin. Therefore you cannot love God if you love sin. SOURCES [1] . http://www.openbible.info... [2] . http://www.charismamag.com... [3] . http://christianity.about.com... [4] . http://christianity.stackexchange.com...

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

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.

My response in round two will be but a single mode of thought as my opponent has funnelled all three arguments to a case of IS versus OUGHT If you saw someone trying to feed himself through his ears and not his mouth (it's not hurting anyone), but he's acting contrary to the norm. Would you do anything to assist him to eat properly? Why do we even bother helping kids with autism or learning disabilities? Why do we teach kids proper manners? Why do we teach kids how to act properly in public? The thing is when we see something out of place or not working properly or not working towards their full potential, we have a tendency to fix things. Homosexual couples are acting in a way that their bodies were not designed for. I'm not saying we need to force people out of that lifestyle, but we shouldn't encourage it and cover it under the shroud of normalcy. If we define normalcy as that of historical and majority behavioural patterns, then homosexuality is not normal behaviour. Why do we correct people who mis-use things. And if we define normalcy as the proper use of ones reproductive organs, then homosexuality is not normal because homosexual partners mis-use their reproductive organs. I'll use an example for two male homosexuals: the anus is for expelling solid waste matter, not the receiving of spermatozoa-containing fluids. There are no cells in the anus or even colon for that matter that can be fertilized by spermatozoa. Not to mention that it's fact that male homosexual partners have many-fold higher changes of contracting an STD. So from an STD point of view, male homosexuality should be discouraged to reduce the spread of STD's. From the point of view of normalcy and mis-use of one's body parts, it should be discouraged. Suppose for example that it was found that homosexuality could be remedied with a pill, will this change the stance of society to encourage or discourage homosexuality? I believe it would. The ability to change homosexual orientation to heterosexual orientation would change the way society as a whole thinks of homosexuality. So then this argument boils down to, is there such a path or option that could change sexual orientation. From my arguments above, the answer is yes, there are people who have made that transition. Homosexuality can be fixed, which makes it a condition. If it is a condition that can be changed, then society needs to stop propping it up as the new "in" thing that its proud of, but to approach it from the point of view that there is a problem, how better can we develop ways to fix it. Society has jumped too quickly is claiming homosexuality as normal when a path exists that people have chosen to take to change their sexual orientation and remove homosexual feelings. If there were ZERO examples of such cases then there would be less substance in this argument, but since such examples exist, it is more difficult to claim that homosexuality is normal. As a clarification to contention 2, my opponent misunderstood my wording, I said "it is a choice to act upon them", which is different from homosexuality is a choice. A murderer can have feelings to kill, but it is his choice to act upon it. A person can have lust and homosexual feelings, but if they don't act upon it, it doesn't make them homosexual. Our actions define us. What I would like to see in the second round though is for the opponent to attempt to reconcile the issues brought forth under the assumption of the existence of a creator. Attack the argument under that assumption instead of brushing it aside with the blanket "can't prove god exists" argument.

Resolution: Homosexuality in Humans is Natural Definitions: Natural is that which does not conflict with natural law. Natural Law has many possible definitions. However, for this debate, natural law will be defined as the evolutionary process. Homosexuality is the state of being sexually attracted to the same sex.

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" 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. "Teens who self-identify as homosexual are five times more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to attempt suicide, according to a study released last week. 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. " Supposedly they're more likely to commit crime. "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." Homosexuals, when taken into consideration that they make up a small percentage of the population, are more likely to engage in child molestation. "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." 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. 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, the government should stop trying to change the original meaning of marriage by incentivizing being married or being single. Instead they should accept someone's "significant other" of a certain amount of years if they need to know for financial reasons, etc. At most they should allow non-religious civil unions to homosexuals that allow the same rights of being married. POINT #3: MAIN PURPOSES OF MARRIAGE/NATURE AND NURTURE. I think outside of a debate setting most-everyone can agree that the two main purposes of marriage is, symbolic way of showing the world around you that you love this person so much you want to spend the rest of your life with them, (keep in mind what love means, I'll come back to that in a second.) and to raise a family, whether that's from the process of procreation or adoption. so on to the "love" statement, most homosexuals say they just want to be left alone and be able to "love" who they want to, that's simply not so. The definition of love is "affection and tenderness felt by lovers" the definition of "lover" is "a person in love", "in love" means "inspired by affection" and "affection" means "a feeling of liking and caring for someone or something". So that means you can be "in love" with just about anyone you like/care about. What homosexuals want is the sexual attraction, I don't blame them...we see gays are more likely to sexually molest kids, that certainly can't get better with celibacy. However if you follow the "Kinsey scale" (I'll put a link to info about that in my sources) it shows virtually everyone is somewhat Bisexual. Following that, that means there's a large chance homosexuals could find someone of the opposite sex they both love and are sexual attracted to. Now we come to the raising a family/nature and nurture part of this section, I'll even completely ignore the fact homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children. Homosexuals should not raise a family for multiple reasons, homosexuality is NOT purely biological, that's absurd (this is the only source I'll post both here as opposed to sources http://www.breitbart.com... ) which means that living in a household with homosexual parents will most likely give you a higher chance of being homosexual, and this is what Milo Yiannopoulos (a gay conservative british journalist) said "Rogan asked who Kohn was, and Milo replied that Kohn is "a Jewish lesbian feminist on CNN" who said famously " well not famously because she"s not famous, she"s just a sort of amusement on Twitter " that she would like a gay kid! She specifically wants a gay kid which I thought was just weird." "Why not just want a healthy kid?" Rogan interjected. "Well why not just want a child or want a smart, athletic, beautiful popular kid?" replied Milo. "No, she wants a gay one. Why? Because she"s a narcissist and she doesn"t care about anything that"s going to happen to that child in its lifetime, any of the unhappy things that might happen to that child." "I"m not talking about bigotry or whatever; let"s say we cure homophobia. Great, but I"m having sex with somebody and cannot create a child with the person I love in the act of intercourse, like that"s kinda rough.. and a lot of people don"t go through their lives thinking about that, but that has occurred to me in the past." and because children who are not raised with a mother and father (how they should be, because there's no other completely natural way to have a kid otherwise) are worse off "Had I been formally studied by same-sex parenting "experts" in 1985, I would have confirmed their rosiest estimations of LGBT family life," Lopez wrote, but then went on to argue against same-sex marriage saying that, "behind these facades of a happy "outcome" lay many problems." He describes experiencing a great deal of sexual confusion due to the lack of a father figure in his life. He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager." There's also the studies showing kids need both "Fathers tend to play with, and mothers tend to care for, children".Fathers encourage competition; mothers encourage equity. One style encourages independence while the other encourages security".Both provide security and confidence in their own ways by communicating love and physical intimacy." I would continue but I don't have the amount of characters left to quote anything else and provide a source. So this is my opening argument. SOURCES. https://www.merriam-webster.com... https://www.lifesitenews.com... https://www.lifesitenews.com... https://www.frc.org... https://www.blueletterbible.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.breitbart.com... http://www.cnsnews.com... http://www.cfcidaho.org...

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?

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

"So remember this: since God condemns sinfulness, you cannot love God if you practice the sin." I thought we were all sinners? We were born sinners? Like I said before, being homosexual is not always a choice. In order to be religious all you have to do is believe in a organized belief structurer and believe in god(s). Based on the definition of religion at least. I assume you believe god created us all? Well, as studies show, (I stated them in my previous round) gay people don't always chose to be gay. Why did god create gay people like that? Why did god create mankind to be gay? Its not always because they chose to be gay. They had no choice of their sexual orientation in the first place. " Besides, it's definitely a choice that you get married gay, and that's the main problem here if I'm not mistaken." Actually, as the title states, it is "A homosexual person cannot be Christian." It has nothing to do with marriage. Yes, marrying gay is a choice. Your biological sexual orientation is not always a choice. "Here's the thing: if a Christian chooses to be gay, that's immoral in God's eyes and the two lifestyles contradict each-other." Well, there are many things that are immoral in god's eyes, yet they are still considered Christian. "There are six things the Lord hate seven that are detestable to him haughty eyes lying tongue,hands that shed innocent blood heart that devises wicked schemes,feet that are quick to rush into evil a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community"-Proverbs 6:16-19 Lets face it. No one in human history has never told a lie. It is a child's motivation to lie, to escape punishment. A study asked two people to talk to each other for ten minutes. After the tape rolled, they were surprised how many little lies came out. (http://curiosity.discovery.com...) How exactly can you blame the gay person because of their sexual orientation, when they don't always have a choice? (Based on the studies i presented in my previous round). Thank you for your reply! I too enjoy this debate immensely, and am impressed with tour arguments.

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


Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Being transgender is not a sin, but a congenital condition. Transgender women are women due to biological reality, as numerous studies show that their brains have physiological traits that are female. This aligns them with intersex individuals who also face biological realities. Research by Kruijver et al. (2000) indicates that male-to-female transsexuals have a female-sized BSTc, a limbic nucleus, unaffected by adult hormone treatments, suggesting a powerful biological force compelling them to identify as female rather than just psychological conviction (Tugnet et al. 2007). Studies by Smith ES (2015) and Hary L et al. (2009) have shown that being a male-to-female transsexual has a genetic basis, with a significant link between transsexualism and the AR allele, where transsexuals have longer AR repeat lengths than non-transsexual male controls. It's important to note that not all cisgender women experience menstrual cramps, pregnancy, or other typical female experiences due to conditions like Mayer-Rockitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome (MRKH), which affects the uterus and womb. Evidence suggests that transgenders are born with their identity, as studies by Zhou et al. (1995) and Garcia-Falgueras A (2010) indicate that gender identity and sexual orientation are programmed into our brain structures during fetal development. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals occurs earlier than that of the brain, these processes can be influenced independently, leading to transsexuality. There's no indication that post-birth social environment affects gender identity or sexual orientation.

Most gender dysphoric children grow up to be gay or lesbian, but persistent gender dysphoria in childhood is characterized by extreme gender dysphoria, with the most likely outcome being homosexuality or bisexuality (Drescher J et al. 2014). However, only a small percentage of children with gender dysphoria develop a persistent transsexual identity in adolescence (Alexander Corte et al. 2008). Medical interventions are not warranted in pre-pubertal children, but in adolescence, they may be appropriate for persistent transsexual identity (Riittakerttu Kaltiala-Heino et al. 2015). It's crucial to distinguish between sexual orientation and gender identity.

Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross-dressing, but intersex conditions like Congen

"So remember this: since God condemns sinfulness, you cannot love God if you practice the sin." I thought we were all sinners? We were born sinners? Like I said before, being homosexual is not always a choice. In order to be religious all you have to do is believe in a organized belief structurer and believe in god(s). Based on the definition of religion at least. I assume you believe god created us all? Well, as studies show, (I stated them in my previous round) gay people don't always chose to be gay. Why did god create gay people like that? Why did god create mankind to be gay? Its not always because they chose to be gay. They had no choice of their sexual orientation in the first place. " Besides, it's definitely a choice that you get married gay, and that's the main problem here if I'm not mistaken." Actually, as the title states, it is "A homosexual person cannot be Christian." It has nothing to do with marriage. Yes, marrying gay is a choice. Your biological sexual orientation is not always a choice. "Here's the thing: if a Christian chooses to be gay, that's immoral in God's eyes and the two lifestyles contradict each-other." Well, there are many things that are immoral in god's eyes, yet they are still considered Christian. "There are six things the Lord hate seven that are detestable to him haughty eyes lying tongue,hands that shed innocent blood heart that devises wicked schemes,feet that are quick to rush into evil a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community"-Proverbs 6:16-19 Lets face it. No one in human history has never told a lie. It is a child's motivation to lie, to escape punishment. A study asked two people to talk to each other for ten minutes. After the tape rolled, they were surprised how many little lies came out. (http://curiosity.discovery.com...) How exactly can you blame the gay person because of their sexual orientation, when they don't always have a choice? (Based on the studies i presented in my previous round). Thank you for your reply! I too enjoy this debate immensely, and am impressed with tour arguments.

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.

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

Before we begin I must add that this debate will make no sense to you if you do not believe what the bible says is true (taking into consideration the 2000 year time gap and translation from ancient Hebrew into English). Let’s begin Point 1; Common Sense; Genesis 1 In this chapter God creates man, and he said he was good. Now God created everything inside of Adam and eve also, including their reproductive organs. And those organs are to produce offspring. God did not make the organs for man's enjoyment. He made them for man’s survival. There is no way that a man and a man or a woman and a woman can produce offspring together. That is the way God made them. Point 2; Gods approval of heterosexual marriage and disapproval of sodomy; Genesis 1: 24, Deuteronomy 18:10 In Genesis God instructs Adam and Eve in the way marriage works; "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." God set up marriage as a way for man to reproduce. He set it up and that's the way it should be. In Deuteronomy God lists homosexuals under abominable practices, right between child sacrifices and sorcery. In Leviticus 20 it actually says "It is an abomination, they shall surly be put to death."

Its not easy to debate without a response. But I only insist that a sexual choice can not be treated like a natural feature like race. And because of that, one can not say that sexual deviants, bisexuals or homosexuals whatever the term can not demand respect in the same category as Africans that where enslaved.

TopicThe topic of this debate will be: "Homosexuality is not a decision, it is natural". The pro will be arguing that homosexuality is not a decision, and that it is natural. The con will be arguging that homosexuality is not natural, and optionally argue that it is a decision(However this leads on if it is not natural).DefinitionsDecision: "the act or process of deciding; determination, as of aquestion or doubt, by making a judgement" [1]Natural: "existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): anatural bridge." [2]In this debate, we will be referring to natural as something that is formed by nature. Making a decision does not constitute being formed by nature. Debate StructureRound 1: This round will be used for acceptance of the debate and/or for any definitions either side would like to make prior to their arguments.Round 2: In this round, both sides will state their arguments. Neither side will respond to each others arguments directly.Round 3 and 4: In this round, both sides will respond to/rebutt their opponents arguments. No additional arguments may be made during this round, only response to pre-existing arguments.Round 5: In this round, both the pro and con will conclude their arguments. No additional arguments may be made.Debate RulesBurden of Proof: The burden of proof is on both the pro and the con. Pro must prove that homosexuality is natural and is not a decision, whereas Con must prove that homosexuality is unnatural, and optionally that it is a decision(However this follows if it is unnatural).Respect: Both the pro and con must be respectful to each other, and must refrain from any insulting, discriminating or harmful remarks that are not directly relevant to the debate.Evidence: Provision of evidence will be required for any kind of statistical/scientific finding. All evidence mentioned or used during the debate must be cited or else the opposition will not be required to respond to the particular argument in which the evidence is used.Listing of Arguments: It is required that when making an argument, that it be labeled and optionally numbered. If an argument made by either the pro or con is not able to be clearly referenced, misinterpretation will be the fault of the person who made the argument. In other words, number/name your arguments so clarity can be ensured.References (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...Note: This debate is a repost of the following(http://www.debate.org...) in which someone accepted it thinking they were taking a different position to what they were. The debate is open.

Contention. Justin Beiber kissed another man.The argument my opponent brings in defense of the resolution is that he personally saw the pop star kissing another man. There are, I think, three major problems with this argument, making it far from enough to justify my opponent's case.(1) My opponent failed to provide actual evidence of Mr. Beiber actually kissing another man. If no evidence is provided then there is no reason to even accept the assertion. For instance, I could make the simple counter-contention that I saw Justin Beiber having sex with a women and there would be just as much reason to accept this. The point is that in the words of Mr. Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."[1](2) Even if evidence was provided of Mr. Beiber kissing another man, this would still not be sufficient evidence to prove that he is a homosexual. To understand this, consider the definition of a homosexual. It is defined as either sexual attraction to one's own gender or having sexual intercourse with members of one's sex.[2] Kissing is neither of these and thus is in itself insufficient to prove my opponent's case. Consider people we generally kiss who we are definitely not attracted to, our grandmother, an old aunt, a great-grandfather, and other older family members where kissing is simply a greeting with no sexual undertones. Kissing itself is insufficient to prove sexual attraction.(3) Even if sexual attraction to other men or evidence of intercourse with members of his own sex were properly established, my opponent would have still not met his burden of proof. Remember that there is not a simple dichotomy of you're either straight or gay. There are also other "middle" positions such as pansexuality wherein one is attracted to someone not based on gender or bi-sexuality wherein one is attracted to both other males and females. No reason was provided by my opponent to refute either of these positions especially considering that there is ample evidence of his being attracted to females as well[3][4].===Sources===[1] http://www.goodreads.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://www.tmz.com...[4] http://articles.latimes.com...

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

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

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