Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

The debate around the gay allele
Introduction: The assumption that genes solely influence behavior, particularly sexual orientation, is a concept that lacks substantial scientific backing. While genetics can potentially affect mental capacity and emotional demeanor, attributing homosexuality entirely to genetics is unfounded. Dr. Dean Hamer, who conducted the "gay gene" study, concluded that "Homosexuality is not purely genetic... environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay." The complexity of genomic processes and the numerous environmental factors involved in human behavior make it difficult to establish a direct link between genes and psychological traits. According to law professor Lynn Wardle, "the knowledge base regarding the etiology of homosexuality-especially claims of biological immutability-is too immature and unsettled." To win this debate, Pro must provide conclusive evidence that homosexuality is caused by a "gay allele" that is activated. However, other factors contributing to human homosexuality will also be discussed.

Traumatic Child Abuse: Sexually abused children often exhibit psychological abnormalities, such as emotional damage, relationship problems, and sexual disturbance. According to Dr. Joseph H. Beitchman, chief of the Child and Family Studies Centre at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, sexual abuse can result in "sexual disturbance or dysfunction, homosexual experiences in adolescence or adulthood." While not claiming that all homosexuality stems from sexual abuse, it is well-documented that such abuse can lead to abnormal sexual feelings and behavior in children.

Social Development: Sexual orientation emerges from an interaction between sex drive development and social development during early adolescence. In a society with increasing acceptance of homosexuality as normal or desirable, young children and teenagers may become unsure of their sexual identity and experiment sexually with others of the same sex. Social constructs of what is "straight" and what is "gay" can pressure individuals to identify as homosexual or make it easier for them to "go with it." A study on "coming out of the closet" found that comfort with sexual orientation was highest in those with early patterns and lowest in those with late trajectories and limited gay/lesbian/bisexual social immersion. Given that sexual feelings and perceptions are subjective, social development must be considered a primary causal factor in the development of sexual identity.

The Problem in Defining Homosexuality: The concept of homosexual identity is unclear, with various views on its definition. If homosexuality is based on a self-evaluation of one's own sexuality and is subjective in nature, it cannot be argued that it is a fixed outcome of genetic predisposition. An adequate definition of homosexual identity

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

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

You are making this very hard to understand because you are not responding to every single point that I am making. There are still things you haven't addressed. It almost seems as though you are not reading them. 1.) This is hard to understand. You used the term "shot yourself in the foot" and the last time you said that phrase it was in response to my point about its removal from the DSM III for no reason other than public outcry. This time it seems as though you have dropped the DSM discussion (about the fact that it is considered a mental disorder but society is more important than science now, apparently) because you don't mention it at all. Fair enough, I guess one point for me. I love how you use the term "emotions" when in reality, I have been sourcing almost all of my claims. Also you say that I do not provide facts, when in fact I believe that I have been doing the complete opposite, I have been providing facts/evidence. 2.) You say that I am basing my response on emotions, but then you source a quote that has nothing to do with my emotions. You referenced something that I quoted about a guy who was recalling his younger years of how he turned to a life of prostitution because he lacked the void of a father figure. It seems as though you are focusing more on the word "child" rather than what is actually being said. (I would also like to note, so what if he is just a child? Doesn't that make my argument more sound? Because children are more susceptible to psychological effects than adults, which is my point, that it is a psychological issue) 3.) I think/know you are missing a big point. I stated in round 2 "Homosexuality can be linked with being molested as a child". I think you might have had your cursor over the word CAN. I was very careful not to use broad generalizations because I knew that it would lead to this. In fact, I have already said this, in round 3, "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." Do I believe that EVERY single child with neglectful parents becomes homosexual, of course not, that is an absurd claim to make. Is it possible to believe that it could have an affect on people, absolutely, as is the case with the person I quoted. The problem is you (I am only assuming based on your responses) believe that everyone is exactly the same, psychologically. I believe that everyone is different, this why I have said certain things "can" affect certain people. 4.) I think you failed to see my point. You cannot compare sexuality in fish to sexuality in humans. Why do I say that? Because fish are completely different. Like I have said, there are certain fish that can change genders, there are also certain fish that can reproduce asexually. Neither of these sexual traits can be found in humans. I also put that "They might have misinterpreted male fishes being exposed to a chemical and then turning female to being homosexual [male] fish". Also, like I have said this study completely contradicts itself "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." 5.) "I did not mention your twin study due to the fact that you did not source it" well, that isn't a good way to debate, you don't just not address something because you didn't have a source, you ask for a source (even though I gave you an EXACT example of this with the Collins twins) but then I said (this was in round 2) "In an article 8 major studies made this same conclusion that homosexuality is not genetic because of twins. Here is the article, read it for yourself: [insert link here]" So you are wrong, I did give you a source. Then you go on one of the worst rambles I have ever seen. Do you even read what you write? -"especially when there are several twin studies that show one child becoming heterosexual and the other becoming homosexual due to genetic means". Do you think that I don't believe there can be twins that are both homosexual? That's not what I said at all. I questioned how is it possible that if homosexuality is a genetic issue, when two people with the same dna (genes) are not both homosexual? I want you to explain to me how that is possible. - (coming from a guy that says I don't source, you didn't source, you just put the list of people in the study) The first 2 sentences need context, it is just an excerpt out of a research paper. How was this investigation done? I have no idea, regardless, look at the percentages. 91.5% of men reported no overt homosexual behavior during the 12 months. but 91.5% of the 32.8% of men = ~ .3% of total sample. WHAT? The last point is probably the most important one, the "The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior" Are you kidding me? Go look back at those numbers and tell me what is striking. "37.4% of the time it is influenced by genetics". So 62.6% of the time homosexuality isn't affected by genetics, garbage. What happened to the 62.6% of the people that are homosexual that can't be linked to genetics? That means they weren't "born that way". Either it has an affect or it doesn't and clearly (from this study) it doesn't have an effect. How do you miss this? This is your own evidence. *** Also don't think I forgot when you said "especially with your reasoning being due to your religious discriminatory values" um.... excuse me. Where did I ever use religion in this debate. IN FACT, I have strictly mentioned that I would be refraining from sourcing studies that are run by religious organizations ( to remove bias ). I have no idea how you can make such a claim (then again, look at how this debate has been going). 6.) I know I have said this already in this round but since you mentioned it I will again too. I do not believe I have been emotion based in this debate. Actually, I believe that I have been provided a good amount of evidence. 7.) Besides the fish study and this study with homosexual twins, you haven't given me evidence as to how it is genetics. Even these studies you have given me are practically useless. I mean... fish aren't mammals and their sexuality is completely different from humans. The homosexual twins study you gave showed that it isn't genetic because it only might have an effect like ~30% of the time. Come on man, is this all you got? Hit me with something hard, show me something where there is ABSOLUTE WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT evidence that it is genetic. I mean, that's basically the consensus of society, so there must be something out there. Why haven't you shown me it? Just k.o me in one swoop. Can you do it? I don't think you can because there isn't evidence to prove its genetics, but there is evidence to prove it CAN ( I have to capitalize it because apparently you can't read that word ) be based on psychology. I await your response. ********* Hey I know I kind of did this already, but for round 5 lets just wrap everything up no responding just a closer, because its the last round. Agreed?*******

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

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

Hmmmm, I happen to be in agreeance with you that being gay is not a choice. I also feel that being straight or any particular sexual orientation is a choice. But all of this is based on the premise that I do not feel I can suddenly choose to be gay/bisexual/asexual. Though I have wished once or twice that I was asexual (meaning in this context that I find nothing attractive in a romantic way). Though I do have a question on your last comment that I would ask you answer in the comment section if you see it. You said, "I would believe that over 50% of gay people would love to infact experience the love of a woman rather than a man." Why would this be? Or why do you feel it is true?

Pro opens the debate in round #1 with the following: "gender is a social construct cuse we are told when we are first born by a dude what gender but if he didnt tell us that we woudnt have a gender its only cuse he told us that gender that we are that gender i myself am an Androgenic masculine female attracted hermophro female and i am standing up against sexism and male patrechy" Gender defined: 1a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical formsb : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclassc : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass 2a : sex b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex (1) Argument Etymology of "gender": The term "gender" has been in use to denote sex since the late 14th century, and has become more commonly so recently, as the term "sex" took on a meaning less regarding one"s genitalia and became more commonly used to reference the sex act. (2). In general use, gender and sex have become synonymous in referring to males and females. Con disagrees with the claim. The proposition that, we are told what our gender is after birth is proof that it is a social construct, is simply not the case. The physicians and other medical staff make a determination of the gender of a newborn based on physical characteristics, i. e. , genitalia, which are unique to a given gender. They do not decide and assign gender. They recognize what is. Simply denying the obvious gender of a newborn does not change the fact of it. Pro goes on to claim that if we were not told our gender our gender would not exist. We know this is not the case. Everyone is aware that the gender of a child is already factual prior to the pronouncement by medical staff. A child does not enter the world without gender and suddenly develop genitalia in accordance to the spoken decree of the attendees. If pro insists on going deeper into the substance of the individual, those gender differences are based on the 23rd pair of chromosomes in humans, with females having 2 X chromosomes and males having an X and a Y chromosome in the 23rd pair. (3) (4) The last sentence of Pro"s Round #1 argument is not disputed. Con would point however to Pro"s use of female in the description of herself. Con finds Pro"s argument that gender is an arbitrary assignment by a male at birth as part of an anti female world preposterous and wholly without merit. Con"s argument is refuted. Gender is not a social construct. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.etymonline.com... . https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... . https://www.britannica.com...

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...

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...

You do have to remember the other principles that this great country of ours was built on. The constitution has three universal rights. The most important is the freedom of pursuit of hapiness which also states that it has to be as long as they dont hurt anyone. Now tell me, are homosexuals really hurting anyone? are they commiting any crimes? They shouldnt be judged on their orientation, but as the people they really are.


Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Assigning a gender to infants at birth can be detrimental and confining. I will argue against the practice, focusing on how it can be detrimental and confining to assign a gender to a newborn. Pro makes a compelling argument about Transgender and Cisgender individuals, suggesting that their genetic makeup or personal preference might lead them to feel that they were assigned the wrong gender. Men might feel they are women, and vice versa. Those born with both male and female sexual organs might feel differently than what their parents decided. However, assigning a gender is not inherently harmful or restrictive to the child. In fact, only six states in the US restrict birth certificates from being amended for gender changes. Twenty-five states allow birth certificates to be amended for gender reassignment without the need for sexual reassignment surgery. Therefore, if someone feels they are the wrong gender, they have the legal right (in 44 out of 50 states) to change their gender and be recognized as the gender they identify with. Feeling or being different from others is not harmful; it is simply how you were made. People can either accept the gender they were assigned and live life to the fullest or choose to change their gender, legally, and live life to the fullest. The US has made significant progress in accommodating those who do not identify simply as male or female.

Note: The similar document has been generated to maintain the same length, complexity, and semantic style as the original document while preserving its relationship to the question.

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

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

The bible was written long ago when there was not a such a copious amount of scientific research, and as such the people then believed that homosexuality was a choice because there was nothing to prove otherwise. You must know that the holy bible was also written in societal morals, not only religious morals. For example, people back then deemed it permissible to stone a woman who had lost her virginity before marriage.

"Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with a proven biological causation. - Denying..." Your statement is false. There are no credible scientific studies that conclude homosexuality is either inherited or springs from one's genetics. If you contend that there are, please cite the study. Secondly, you state that homosexuality is an "accepted lifestyle." By whom? Even in one of the most liberal states in the country, Massachusetts, a voter referendum tallied 70-percent against same sex marriage. The gay marriage law came about by the court, not from a popular vote.

This argument is for and against the statement that every human being is born either a boy or a girl. Opponent can go first and I will provide a rebuttal.

Round 2 (Part One): OPENING ARGUMENTS: Homosexuality is a very controversial topic. Let me just start off with the fact that it is a choice, but not in the sense one chooses to be gay. Basically, there has been no scientific proof that you are born gay, the so-called "gay gene" has been disproved over and over again. It happens in your childhood and in the environment in which you were raised, and therefore can be changed. Homosexuals cannot reproduce and keep the human population growing. either. Also, in many religions homosexuality is considered wrong, this will lead to kids who identify as gay breaking off from families and close relationships. I will further this as we go along in this debate. Round 2 (Part 2): Homosexuality and marriage Homosexual marriage will have a very bad effect on our society. People are just going to say "love is love". A man loving animals such as dogs or horses is ok? I mean, it's not ,much different then homosexual marriage. Neither can reproduce. And you can't say "oh, well they're different species". Different types of animals fall in love with other animals, such as how homosexuality is common in nature. That is all for now, and I now turn this debate toward my opponent.

If God chooses our sexual orientation for us and reveals it to us by our gender, why did he create AIS hermaphrodites or "intersex people" as they are now known as? These individuals have vaginas, female breasts, and are hormonally more women than the average female, BUT they do NOT have a uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes, or ovaries. They DO in fact have testicles and their DNA is MALE. http://www.isna.org... If this person chose to marry, which sex should they marry? How does one reconcile this miracle of nature with the position that God only created male/female? Can your argument be backed up with scripture? Clearly science contradicts the Conservative Christian's position that homosexuality is "wrong" by the AIS condition that absolutely NO ONE can argue with the fact that they are born this way. Furthermore, I would like to challenge anyone to show me where the Bible condemns homosexuality.

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

I 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 thank Nye for this debate. 1. The Argument: (1.1)Premise-Conclusion: 1. All sexual activity that is moral, is rational. 2. All sexual activity that is rational, is reproductive* in nature. 3. Ergo: All sexual activity that is moral is reproductive in nature. 4. Homosexual acts are not reproductive in nature. 5. Ergo: Homosexual acts are not moral. *With the intent of reproduction, which should occur in reasonable circumstances. (1.2)Syllogism: 1. all S* is R 2. all R* is N 3. Ergo: all S is N* 4. all S* is N 5. no H* is N* 6. Ergo: no H is S The syllogisms pass the star-test and so we know that this is a logically valid argument, insofar that it makes logical sense. 2. The First Major Premise: (2.1)Derivation Ex Vi Termini: 1. The first premise states that all sexual activity that is moral must be purely rational. To justify my premise I shall argue from the definition. Now I need to show that morality=rationality. Here I shall remind the voters of the agreed to definition: that "morality" can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specific conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. This was accepted by kbub. 2. This entails then that morality is rational, for purely rational entities would bring about a code that is rational. This can easily be shown by logic where necessarily rational according to a modal operator directly means necessarily neccesarily rational. Which means that if A is the set of necessarily rational people, then they will necessarily come up with a neccearily rational code. Therefore according to our definition all morality is rational. (2.2)Derivation from Causality: 1. It is a simple principle, that of causality. This principle exists in all of human kind and is fundamental in passing judgements.[1] Now consider an action, any action, let's suppose X. Now action X is necessarily moral. So action X will be an effect, right? The effect is a moral action. Now since there is X, there would be a cause action Y. Since there is no need to believe that causality does not apply here, as it does not in Quantum Physics, one can understand that since there is a connection of causality, this can be gauged by reason. We have then, both through definition, and through causality shown that morality is in fact rational. [1]Critique of Pure Reason, by Immanuel Kant; Of Time, pagination 57 http://tinyurl.com...... [2]http://tinyurl.com...... [3]http://tinyurl.com...... 3. The First Minor Premise: (3.1)The Establishment of a Rational Grounding: 1. Now that we have established a link between moral and rational sexual activity, we need to create a fundamental link between rational and reproductive sexual activity. For this we will establish the 'rational grounding' or the primary reason behind sexual activity. This is the primary reason behind anything, here in sexual activity. There can not be two rational groundings, for that would betray the Law of Non-Contradiction. There cannot be two distinct rational primary groundings. (3.2)The Rational Grounding Established Via Evolution: 1. Evolution then is the: "theory of the change of organic species over time, with different conditions." However when one studies this more clearly then one learns that evolution is the name given to thar force which changes organic species, in accordanance with enviroment, so that the "fittest may survive." To connect this with our above rational grounding argument would entail that the rational grounding of sex, viewed from an evolutionary perspective*, is reproductive in nature. This would mean that if evolution is taken as a law of science, and it entails that the rational purpose of sexual conduct is reproductive in nature then my argument is sound. *This argument assumes that evolution is a law of science. 2. We must then before stating the argument understand the difference between instinct, and a secondary precept of nature. An instinct is innate, and therefore universal. This, although drifts from the topic, is because such an idea is not genetical, rather natural. In any case lust is an instinct because lust while may be specified on a certain object, occurs on its own. Furthermore lust transcendent of time insofar as it is a priori to exist. That is that each man/woman/child possesss lust. Then homosexuality, hetrosexuality, and bisexuality or sapiosexuality is a secondary precept of nature. Thus to show the rational grounding of sexual activity we must not limit ourselves to one particular case but to the fundamental force behind it all. This force is lust, and so we shall show the rational grounding of lust. [4]http://tinyurl.com...... [5]http://tinyurl.com...... 3. Let us then begin, lust then as already shown is an instinct. This instinct must have some rational purpose, or rational grounding as we have also already realized. This rational purpose may be understood quite easily when we realize that evolution, as the noun of a force, makes redundant any such instinct not neccessary for survival. In such evolution has not made lust redundant, as it has to other forces such as nervousness which used to be much stronger and used in battle, now it is much less feeling. Since that we understand that lust is neccessary for survival. It is important to note that lust is important for survival because lust directly causes sex, and without lust people would not have sex (see Freuds above essay). Lust is neccessary for survival only so far as it results in sec which reproduces to carry on the human race. Therefore since morality entails noramtive rationality, which may be connected the rational grounding of sex, which is further connected to lust, and lust is justified evolutionaly by reproduction then sexual activity is moral only when it is reproductive in nature. [6]On the Origins of Species, by Charles Darwin, On Instinct, pagination 189 http://tinyurl.com...... [7]The Psychology of Love, by Sigmund Freud (The entire book focuses on this, for summary see Beyond the Pleasure Principle, or the summary provided above) http://tinyurl.com...... [8]http://tinyurl.com...... (3.3) The Rational Grounding Established from Pure Theology: 1. Theology is not neccessary Chrisitian, as not am I. I find this worth mentioning in the case where I am criticized for Christian reasoning, theology seeks to establish principles, logically set, only with one conclusion: that there is a God. There are those who deny evolution and so this argument is meant to convince them, my opponent however, regardeless of his beliefs, will have to attack this argument. 2. Insofar we may set a rational grounding from Theology where we consider an infinitely just and loving God. This God endowed man/woman/child with lust, and then considers some conclusions of lust sinful. It does not matter which religion one follows because one must believe that (from a theological perspective) that God is love, and that the blasphemy of this love by embracing erotic love is displeasing to God. 3. It then leads us to conclude that a loving God would only endow man and woman with lust had it have a specific purpose, this purpose will be reproduction, that is to carry on the human race. This then concludes that the rational grounding to lust, if theology is assumed correct, is that the only way sexual activity is moral is if it is reproductive in nature (following the same links as above). [9]Theodicy, by Leibniz, 'On the Justness of God from a Logical Perspective', pagination 33 http://tinyurl.com...... [10]Critique of Practical Reason, by Immanuel Kant, 'The Existence of God as a Postulate of Pure Practical Reason', pagination 329 (The Cambridge Works of Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy) http://tinyurl.com...... [11]The Metaphysics of Morals, by Immanuel Kant, 'On Defiling Oneself With Lust', and 'Marriage Right', pagination 329 [12]The Berne Fragments by Hegel, (only 23 pagination) [13]On Love by Hegel, (only 6 pagination) Since homosexual acts are not reproductive, they are immoral.


Question: Is Sexual Orientation Predetermined at Birth?

Sexual Orientation Isn't a Voluntary Decision

Sexual orientation is established at birth, but it can take time for an individual to fully understand it. For those who have experienced shifts from gay to heterosexual, it's likely they are still exploring their identity and may even identify as bisexual. This insight comes from my personal experience. Growing up in a conservative Christian family, any orientation other than heterosexuality was discouraged. During my teenage years, as I began to explore my identity, I started questioning my sexuality. I realized that I didn’t feel attraction to anyone and, through conversations with friends, I understood that I was asexual. Was this a choice? Absolutely not. Was it influenced by my environment? Not at all. I was asexual from birth, but it took time for me to recognize this fact.

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?

See, you only shot yourself in the foot again. It is very clear that you base your argument under the basis of your emotions rather than the facts that you so attempt to provide to supplement your argument. James Madison would of had a fit with you if he ever saw your argument so ridiculed as you have made it with just your sentiments. For example, you stated: "Homosexuality can be related towards the lack of a parent-child relationship. CSNews reported a story with a homosexual [/child stating/] "He describes experiencing a great deal of sexual confusion due to the lack of a father figure in his life. He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager." And I replied: "In terms of your argument #4, you are talking of a mere child; someone whom hasn't even made it past maturity yet. I find that not to be sufficient evidence, as there are many people whom suffered through neglectful parents that are openly heterosexual." And your response was: "No, the person in this example was not a child. How do you read "He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager" and think I am talking about a kid. To be fair on my end I did say "story of a child" but what I meant was his experience as a kid." Last I checked, a child is a teenager. Now, your argument about neglected children becoming homosexual because of lack of a parent-child relationship is complete fallacy. There are many, /many/ people whom have suffered child abuse and are heterosexual; to generalize that homosexuals are homosexual because of their mommy/daddy disputes is completely irrational. And while the study I quoted was of fish, which I am glad you caught, it outlines the very possibility that homosexuality can very much be genetic in other animals as well. I did not mention your twin study due to the fact that you did not source it, especially with your reasoning being due to your religious discriminatory values. It's a waste of my time to, especially when there are several twin studies that show one child becoming heterosexual and the other becoming homosexual due to genetic means. One of them is from "N. Kenneth Sandnabba, Nicole Harlaar, Markus Varjonen, Katarina Alanko, and Bettina von der Pahlen... They state; "We investigated the potential to engage in homosexual behavior in 6001 female and 3152 male twins and their siblings finding that 32.8% of the men and 65.4% of the women reported such potential (p < 0.001). 91.5% of these men and 98.3% of these women reported no overt homosexual behavior during the preceding 12 months. The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior." If you cannot control your emotions, I suggest you waste away the following rounds and I will very happily do the same. We will let the voters decide whom is right and whom is not.

I'm disagreeing that everyone is at least a little gay, which means your argument is that EVERYONE is at least a little gay; not some, but EVERYONE. As a gay guy, I'm totally gay. I am not sexually attracted to women at all. Not even a little, little bit. So I can fully understand that there are people that are only sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and not the same sex whatsoever. As long as there is at least one person on Earth that claims to be 100% heterosexual, I can believe it and fully accept it as truth. Therefore, NOT everyone is at least a little gay -- some are, but not all. Thanks for the debate.

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

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?

There is too much evidence that homosexuality is psychological and there is 0 evidence that proves homosexuality is genetic. Any evidence given by a homosexual scientist is automatically discredited due to bias.

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

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

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."

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