Question: Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

Title: Sexual orientation is determined at birth. Content: Sexual orientation IS determined at birth. How? You can easily see whether a baby has female or male genitals. A penis is for the males and a vagina is for the females. Simple.

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice. Content: Sexual orientation is something that people are born with.

Title: People are Born Gay Content: People are born with their sexual orientation already determined, just like they are born tall or short, it may not be apparent at birth but it is there.

Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: "You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are." This is silly statement. One does not normally realise their sexuality immediately. It's set in stone at birth, but it may take a while to figure it out. Thank you for debating me. This was a good one.

Title: Gay adoption Content: Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality

Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: Sexuality is determined at birth, but it may take a while for one to figure it out. As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are. They could even be bisexual. Here I speak from personal existence. I grew up in a conservative Christian household, so anything other than heterosexuality was frowned upon. I hit the teenage years when I begin to learn things about myself, and I began to question my sexuality. I simply realised, "hey, I don't really like anyome" and go to talking with some friends and I figured out that I'm asexual. Did I choose to be this way? No. Did my environment influence me? No. I was asexual at birth, but only recently realised it.

Title: Homosexuality is Genetic Content: My opponent has not made any separate points, therefore, no rebuttals from me. My conclusion: APA states: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."[1] VOTE CON Good luck Pro [1]http://www.onenewsnow.com...

Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: I believe that sexual orientation DOES originate from biology that is, it depends upon biological factors such as genes and hormones. I think the burden of proof is shared here.

Title: Homosexuality is not a choice Content: All sexual orientations are determined by a complex interaction of traits, with no single gene acting as the "signal" for whether you like members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both. Therefore, essentially your environment plays a role in deciding what sex(es) you end up being attracted too. For example, lets say I'm a gay male, I can choose to date, have sex, etc. with women (doesn't mean I'll like it) but, nonetheless I can choose to do it. On the other hand, I can't choose to be attracted to them because I'm gay, no matter how hard I try, I can't choose to be unattracted to men.

Title: Sexual orientation is determined at birth. Content: Pro's argument about the female and male genitals seems to be a non-sequitur. Read what one is here.[1] The genitals have little to do with sexual orientation. While the genitals determine biological sex and biological sex correlates with sexual orientation, biological sex is not the cause of sexual orientation. If sexual orientation was determined at birth, then all identical twins would have the same sexual orientation. However, it is not the case that when one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual. As has been established by several studies on this matter, not 100% of twins have the same sexual orientation as the other, in fact it varies from as little as 20% of twins sharing the same sexual orientation, to as much as 60% in some studies.[3, pg 271] Source:[1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;[2] https://genepi.qimr.edu.au...;

Title: Sexuality is a Choice Content: "Please reproduce IN FULL where I have EVER said that sexuality is a choice. I NEVER have. " Well I understood that you had, and by accepting this challenge you have agreed to debate from that position. "Homosexuality (which is a misnomer as people of the same sex cannot breed which is what sexuality refers to) is a choice. " Sexual orientation is not dependent upon reproduction. All you have done is to reiterate without defence your position, that you are claiming that homosexual desires arise from a deliberate choice. Is this consistent with any experience, logic or facts. "ANY sexual act is a choice" This is irrelevant to the debate as we are not discussing acts but feelings. "Unless my opponent can show that I HAVE argued that sexuality is a choice he does not EVEN have a challenge, let alone an argument. " No, by accepting this challenge you have agreed to argue that sexuality is a choice, it is now irrelevant whether or not you have actually argued this previously. You could have asked for the terms of the debate to be changed, but you accepted them. In conclusion my oppoent has failed to argue for the Pro position and is in fact distancing himself from these views. Thus my opponents position is negated. Thank you.

Title: Adoption of Children by Same Sex Couples Content: Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and the...

Title: Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' Content: Hello. == Definitions == Homosexuality: In this debate, we will be specifically be focusing on orientation. Same-sex behavior is different as it is often distinguishable from orientation. Thus, homosexuality will be defined as "an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of . . . the same sex or gender." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... 'Born that way': The theory argues homosexuality is inborn. Homosexuals are born that way, and their orientation is immutable. Genetics, epigenetics, or antibodies in the womb cause homosexuality and cannot change through therapy or different environments. --> I will be arguing homosexuality is caused by multiple things. Genes have *some* effect, but the effect is moderate to weak (less than 50%). Environmental factors are the main reason homosexual tendencies develop. I am NOT arguing it is an (intentional) choice. No one chooses these factors: they just happen. I will also argue change is possible, and therefore mutable. == Structure == R1: Pro accepts and presents case R2: Con presents case, Pro rebuts R3: Rebuttals/defense for both R4: Rebuttals/defense for Con, Pro writes "no round as agreed". I have made this impossible to accept. Accepting without permission = forfeit. No trolling, semantics, stuff like that. gl

Title: born a way Content: Let's get stuck in: -Not Born with a personality- The personality at that stage of life is unlikely to make the conscious or even unconscious decision. When was the first time you have been aroused? When you were a baby? I highly doubt that. Therefore, at the start personality can't determine sexuality immediately. - More open and loving to sexual desires- I completely agree. I have the right to indulge my fetish. -Straight people think gay people are seduced into the lifestyle- A quite large generalization. Who's to say they aren't dragged kicking and screaming, finally accepting themselves. Something we aren't all born with is the self esteem to accept immediately. Study: https://americanvision.org...

Title: Your not born gay Content: Since it is only a one round debate, I'll just give it all I got. I have done some researching and studying regardings this topic and here I will post my findings and prove that you are indeed born gay. Scientific researchers specializing in human sexuality have shown that homosexuality is genetic (and that people are born gay). I am unaware of any study that has ever suggested that sexual orientation is a choice. Scientific research from October 2004 that was replicated in June 2008 stated that scientists have found that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation. A lead researcher said "You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund" and that their findings offered "a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. " A 2005 study reported genetic scans showing a clustering of the same genetic pattern among gay men on three chromosomes - chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother. A study published in Human Genetics in February 2006 examined X chromosome inactivation in mothers of gay sons and mothers whose sons were not gay. Researchers found extreme differences between women who had gay sons and women who did not. A study from 2006 said that researchers have known for years that a man's likelihood of being gay rises with the number of older biological brothers, but the new study found that the so-called "fraternal birth order effect" persists even if gay men were raised away from their biological families & that "the research suggests that the development of sexual orientation is influenced before birth. "Seeing the overwhelming evidence, I hope that the audience agrees with me! Thank you.

Title: Gay Marriage Content: If it matters, I would like to point out that my opponent has used the same wording for all her opening arguments. So I will rebuttal all that she has argued, and encourage her to rebuttal on the points I do not use this round, but used in the previous round. Thanks to my opponent for responding quickly.http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...1. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE Homosexuality is a choice, do not let my opponent fool you with her response, it is a CHOICE. My opponent will give some somewhat scientific website related to health that says being gay is something determined by genetics. In a previous argument, my opponent stated: "If homosexuality was a choice then why would the percentage around the world be so similar? Because this is something that is predetermined, just like you gender, hair color, eye color, so on."Gender, hair color, eye color, etc., are all determined by genetics and God. A difference though is that these are all genetic, passed down from generation to generation. Here is where it gets interesting to me... If being gay is genetic, how are gay people even on this earth? I ask this because it takes a MAN and WOMAN to make a baby. I can cite a source if needed. So if it takes a MAN and WOMAN (straight parents) to make a baby, where does the gay ancestor carrying the homosexual gene come in? Because the family tree will be made of a MAN and WOMAN all the way to Adam and Eve. Does this mysterious homosexual gene just appear out of nowhere? No. Let's be realistic. Being homosexual is a learned behavior. Here is a study that promotes homosexuality is a choice."A new scientific study of 409 pairs of gay brothers could put to rest decades of debate over the existence of the so-called ‘gay gene’. Research conducted by the NorthShore Research Institute in the US found clear links between male sexual orientation and two specific regions of the human genome, with lead scientist Alan Sanders declaring that the work “erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice”. The study is three times larger than any previously done and highlights two genetic regions that have been tied to male homosexuality in separate research: Xq28, first identified in 1993, and 8q12, spotted in 2005. However, Sanders does not claim to have identified a single gene which ‘causes’ male homosexuality in humans and stresses that with complex human traits like sexual orientation there are many influencing factors, both genetic and environmental. For the study Sanders and his team collected blood and saliva from 409 pairs of gay brothers and analysed their genetic code for markers known as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Although Xq28 and 8q12 were the two regions that were most frequently identified as home to genetic markers common among the 818 gay men, three other SNPs were also highlighted. Speaking to the New Scientist, neuroscientist Simon LeVay commented: “This study knocks another nail into the coffin of the 'chosen lifestyle' theory of homosexuality.” "Yes, we have a choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else's idea of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with,” said LeVay, who previously claimed to have found a region of the brain that was smaller in gay men."(A) I proclaim that homosexuality is a learned behavior. You are not predetermined to be a racist, a sexist, a homosexual, etc. These are all learned behaviors. My opponent uses a quite interesting comparison, telling straight people to try and picture a world with gay people everywhere and want to like other men. I'm not sure about my opponent's brain, but in my brain there is no barrier in what gender I am sexually attracted to. I am not attracted to men, I am not a homosexual, but I do not feel as if my brain is "hard wired" to women. We are given free-will in this world by our Creator, we are given the choice in what gender we are attracted to, it is not predetermined and the experiment above proves that. My opponent also uses a interesting statistic that in all societies the amount of gay people typically ranges around 5%-8%. Very interesting, but I am not sure that is a statistically significant fact relating to whether you have a choice of being homosexual or not . That is like saying the amount of Native Americans per state in all fifty states is about the same, x%-x% (not a real statistic, just an example).My opponent gives three statistics which all have to do with the bullying and academic success of gay students. She then blames it on the "gay gene" saying do you think these students want this? My answer to that is uncertain... Once again I am not gay, nor have I ever harassed a gay person. Ultimately, it is the choice of the homosexual, and that homosexual has to ask himself/herself is being gay is worth it. I also have to add that Christians love everyone, if someone has ever harassed or bullied you for being gay I am so sorry. They are not fulfilling what Jesus has taught them."Jesus died and rose so that homosexuals could be forgiven and sanctified, just as surely as He died and rose for you and me. We want to give our full support and pure love to true Christians who struggle with this awful sin. Jesus Christ came to this wicked, sin-filled world to make a holy people for Himself, and let us praise God, who transforms sinners into His saints." (B)2. EQUALITY AND SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE Typically, gay marriage is fought for by groups such as the LGBT community because they feel unequal. I would once again like to use the same example I used earlier from the Declaration of Independence."...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -Declaration of IndependenceNow, if the founding fathers were certain that homosexuals needed to be equal don't you think they would have established that same-sex marriage should be legal throughout the United States? Quite possibly they might have thought about it, gay people were around even at the time of Jesus (hints the Bible's teachings). "...our founding fathers would have been outraged that homosexuals would be out in the open. They knew that such perversion would both undermine and erode the moral foundations of civilization."(C)The creators of the free world believed this. During their lifetime same-sex relations were a capital offense in Britain. What they did do, however, is leave hard decisions like same-sex marriage to the states.So, my opponent brings up the separation of church of state. She is correct, the first amendment denies the government of establishing a religion. However, the 10th amendment reads:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."Therefore, the power to decide same-sex marriage resides with the states. The Supreme Court cannot make laws, they made a inaccurate ruling in 2015.CONCLUSIONOnce again, I ran out of characters. The last two points my opponent made about economic benefits and adoption are not relevant to what I initially argued. I believe that the "traditional marriage" between one man and one woman is the backbone of the United States of America. I ask my opponent to rebuttal my arguments and provide a quality debate. Thank you.(A)http://www.independent.co.uk...(B)http://www.biblequery.org...(C)http://freedomoutpost.com......

Title: Gay Marriage should be declared illegal throughout America Content: Thank you for the very strong rebuttal. I apologize if I misunderstood the meaning of "... it's more likely for children born of gay/lesbian parents to inherit the same preference," and correlated it to one of my statements. I most certainly did not intend to put "words in your mouth." One of the numerous foundations of my argument is the mutually agreed fact that one cannot simply ascertain that genetics do not and cannot alter an individual's sexual orientation. However, my argument inferring that epigenetics, not genetics, can fundamentally influence an individual's sexual preference, is still completely valid. The following definition, that you acquired from Wikipedia, states: ". . . epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype, caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, some of which have shown to be heritable." (I am assuming you simply "forgot" to include the 'caused by' part of the definition). This is only one of the two verified definitions of epigenetics, and is not the focal-point of my argument. If you were to respectfully investigate my first source, Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development (a factual scientific paper), it would be clearly implied that the psychological definition of epigenetics is to be used. The psychological definition, also acquired from Wikipedia (your favorite source for definitions), states: "Epigenetics in psychology helps to explain how nurture shapes nature, where nature refers to biological heredity and nurture refers to virtually everything that occurs during the life-span (e.g., social-experience, diet and nutrition, and exposure to toxins). Epigenetics in psychology provides a framework for understanding how the expression of genes is influenced by experiences and the environment to produce individual differences in behavior, cognition, personality, and mental health." The latter suggests that behavioral epigenetics, a psychologically and biologically established scientific discipline, explains how one's social-experience, environment, and experiences shape the expressions of genes and produce differences in behavior and personality, two key characteristics that dictate sexual orientation/preference. This proves that a predominately homosexual developmental environment generally shapes the sexual behavior and orientation of a child (with respect to conscious choice, hence the psychological definition of epigenetics).For a different perspective on the same proof, feel free to read the Article, Homosexuality & Choice: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Not only does a homosexual marriage threaten their adopted children with the potential inheritance of a manipulated sexual preference, the absence of a paternal and maternal figure of the opposite sex negatively influences the upbringing of a child. By stating,"PRO mentioned that 'Girls who are raised without a father figure are at a higher risk for premature sexual activity and teenage pregnancy.' You forgot to mention that this is only valid if the girl only has ONE maternal figure, not TWO. If she were to be adopted or given birth to by a lesbian couple, she definitely would NOT be as promiscuous as the girl whose second guardian is nonexistent."MilkyChocolate is suggesting that a mother can play the role of a father and vice versa. Each gender has exclusive traits that have a unique role in a child's development. Where does it say that my statement, regarding girls being raised without a father figure, is only valid if the girl has just ONE maternal figure? I simply said "without a father figure." The absence of a father figure cannot be remedied by the installment of another mother... the father is unique to the raising of a child, as is the mother. "While I do not disagree with your statement that we procreate to expand our species and ensure our survival, you must also accept the fact that everyone is different and that we do not all have "greed for life."—Your implied definition of "different" is not clearly articulated, I can only assume that it refers to your accusation that "we do not all have greed for life." Although everyone's reason for self-preservation, the equivalent to "greed for life," may be different, the fundamental instinct of all humans is to self-preserve, i.e. be greedy for life. You stating that procreation ensures our survival, then subsequently stating that we do not all have greed for life, is extremely hypocritical and inappropriate. Gay marriage does restrict our ability to ethically procreate, and is dependent on the union of a man and a woman in order to supply the same-sex couple with a child through the means of reproduction or artificial insemination. As to your assumption that "the world is overpopulated and we're not in any bit of danger of becoming extinct," this is an outrageous accusation! I never suggested that gay marriage would lead to the extinction of the human race, I am simply proving that gay marriage does not benefit society nor the future of our society. Please refrain from any further unjustified accusations! By the way, if you think overpopulation reduces the chances of extinction, you're wrong (see http://www.biologicaldiversity.org... for more information). Unfortunately, I also have to burst your opaque political bubble. The First Amendment text that I quoted was not from Wikipedia, it was from the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov...). The First Amendment does not state or imply that "your freedom ends once you intrude on the others' freedom." I have managed to disprove your arguments once again. Yet, your detail regarding the Ninth Amendment's text is extremely intriguing, but fallaciously unsupported. The current legal interpretation of the Constitution, with respect to the Ninth Amendment, allows for regulation of marriage by States. However, in United States Constitutional law, a particular Federal Principle called "Substantive due Process" allows courts to protect certain fundamental rights from governmental interference, marriage being one of them. Thus, your argument suggesting that gay marriage should be a government-regulated liberty in accordance to the Ninth Amendment would be valid if it were not for the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, both exploiting Substantive due Process to prohibit governmental interference of the fundamental rights of the people.Illegalizing gay marriage not only serves as a safeguard for prevalent child development, it reduces homosexual's composition of population and fundamentally benefits our society's advancement, without infringing any Constitutional rights or liberties. As this is my final argument, I would like to say that it has been an absolute pleasure debating with you on such a challenging and controversial subject! It has been both a learning experience and an opportunity to practice my skills as a debater. Thank you for debating with me.

Title: born a way Content: The only people who ever argue that you aren't born gay, but get 'seduced' into the lifestyle are people who say they are straight. Since they aren't gay, how do they have the first clue what is going on inside the head of a gay person? How did straight people become the experts on gayness? People can be born gay. I think a lot of new research has suggested that sexual orientation can be influenced by hormones the fetus is exposed to during pregnancy. Sexual attraction is something innate and something you cannot change, even if you wanted to. It's determined early in our development.

Title: people are born gay Content: By born gay I don't mean that people are born with a sex drive, that develops later in life. "What you ARE born with is a predisposition to what you will be attracted to when you begin your sexual awakening. " " "American Medical Association Official Website:" http://www.apa.org... (You'll want to read each section of this article on homosexuality divided into the drop boxes) "Here is an article from Cornell University : https://confluence.cornell.edu... " here is the article released by The American Psychoanalytical Association Official Website:" http://www.apsa.org... "is a link to The American Pediatric Associaton Official Website's article on Homosexuality:" http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... "of these sources say that homosexuality is not a choice. "It is something you are born with. "Can I see your links now? " Take or leave the one from Cornell University or any other University. "Similar conclusions have been found by Yale, Oxford, and several other Ivey League Schools. "Those articles are also publicly available. "The American Psychological Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association and the American Pediatric Association Trump any University statement anyway. So many world leading doctors, scientists, biologists and psychologists say being gay is not a choice. (Let's hope I can get a decent opponent this time)

Title: It is a choice to be gay or straight. Content: Nope. The BOP is on whoever makes the positive claim, regardless of whoever makes the first one. I'm arguing that sexual preference is based on genetics and the environment we're raised in, and you're asserting that it's by choice. If anything, the opposite of why you've said it true- If I can prove that it's genetic based in a situation then it would tell how the resolution's false, and you would lose as you're playing Pro. Arguments: A study showed that: "evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved"[1] It also declares the mechanics behind the study: "A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight" It isn't what completely determines though. Genes only account for 40% of sexual preference. There is literally no evidence supporting the claim that it's a choice, so the other part is how you're raised. Thanks. [1] http://www.theguardian.com... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Title: Gay Marriage should be declared illegal throughout America Content: I have never claimed to accept the corresponding statement you've used and I am unaware as to why you'd actually make it up out of nowhere. PRO is putting words in my mouth and I would like to assure the readers that I have not, in any way implied that "these differentiated norms and values that fundamentally govern the upbringing of a child can negatively impact the child's understanding of sexual orientation". It hasn't been definitively proven that Genetics do not and cannot change an individual's sexual orientation just as I've mentioned prior to this argument: "While it's more likely for children born of gay/lesbian parents to inherit the same preference, the domain of Genetics is still pretty fragile and we can't utterly ascertain that fact". Also, it hasn't been proven that if society learns to become more lenient toward homosexuals and accords them the right to marry each other, more and more boys, for example, will suddenly decide to prefer men over women. Hence, proof is weak on both sides of the bargain and you can't just jump into conclusions. I do, however, have the following proof of homosexual heredity: "James I of England (James V of Scotland) Son of Mary, Queen of Scots (1542-1587) had a gay father, Lord Darnly and was also gay himself. " "Charles I of England (1625 King of England) Son of a gay father James I of England and had a gay grandfather Lord Damly. " SOURCE: . http://gaylife.about.com... Upon doing a little bit of research, I have stumbled upon an article that goes: " If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay". SOURCE: . http://www.hollanddavis.com... The abovementioned sentence would sound illogical to anyone who's versed in the basics of Genetics. There is more than just one type of twins, such as twins conceived separately, half identical twins, mirror image twins, etc. The study has been conducted only on very few cases, if not only one. As for your saying that it's not related to Genetics but Epigenetics, I'll have you know that the latter is merely a subbranch of the former; thus, if we were to think of it from a semantic perspective, then whether you'd use the term "Genetics" or "Epigenetics", it's the same thing: "epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype. .. ", the key word here being "gene". Thus, there is not enough scientific proof to confirm that sexual preference can be artificially determined and I do not know of any person to have been so physiologically altered. While I do not disagree with your statement that we procreate to expand our species and ensure our survival, you must also accept the fact that everyone is different and that we do not all have "greed for life". Gay marriage does not restrict our ability to procreate; besides, I'm sure you would agree that the world is overpopulated and we're not in any bit of danger of becoming extinct. In fact, it's quite the opposite. You seem to approach the manner solely from a scientific view, which is why I'm doing the same and suggesting that you don't bring ethics into this since the two aren't linked. The first amendment states, beside what you've copied from Wikipedia that your freedom ends once you intrude on others' freedom, which you are doing right now. Why shouldn't gay marriage be allowed? I've managed to disprove your arguments once again. While the first amendment does not particularly mention homosexuals, we have the ninth amendment, which "addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. " Homosexuals can also have families and raise children properly if given the chance to. By illegalizing gay marriage, they would be denied their rights as an actual married couple. For example, they are required to testify against each other in court even if they're been together for dozens of years. They also can't interfere in their partners' situation in terms of medical emergencies and much more. Paternal and maternal figures don't have a huge impact on the lives of children as much as the first 7 educational years do. In fact, homosexual couples would be more likely to encourage their children to be lenient than heterosexual couples, as you can also agree that most homosexuals have been subject to personal belittlement and denigration. Then again, I can't even speak in regards to the majority; as I've previously mentioned, we are all different, complex beings with all sorts of (sometimes) uncanny and queer psychological traits. While one children may be devastated by the fact that both his/her parents are of the same gender, another might not care at all. PRO mentioned that "Girls who are raised without a father figure are at higher risk for premature sexual activity and teenage pregnancy. ". You forgot to mention that this is only valid if the girl only has ONE maternal figure, not TWO. If she were to be adopted or given birth to by a lesbian couple, she definitely would NOT be as promiscuous as the girl whose second guardian is nonexistent. Legalizing marriage wouldn't put anyone at risk. Civil unions are completely normal and it only ensures homosexuals their deserved rights as human beings. It won't damage society in any way, be it theoretical or practical. There are a lot of homosexuals with integrity out there and sexual preference does not make a person entirely.

Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: My evidence is statistical analysis that shows sharing specific genes increases the probability that you will find the same sex attractive. The topic of the debate was not that sexual orientation is 100% determined by genetics but that genetics do infact play a role which is demonstrable by the evidence I gave. I would like to point out that my opponent has done nothing to show the evidence is in error. [b]"It's in our instintics that every one of us, yes including the other sexuals, was to be paired with the opposite sex."[/b] This statement is very vague, if the claim is that as a matter of instinct we are [u]all[/u] attracted to the opposite sex then this is demonstrably false....as gay people actually exist. [b]"If it is indeed in the genetics the why would the genetic makeup of a gay man not have the qualities of a woman.[/b] Sexual orientation and sexual Identity are two separate issues. There are men with gender identity disorder(brain of woman, feels like they're a woman) who are only attracted to woman. Likewise there are masculine men that are attracted to other men. I would like to point out you never explained why genetics playing a role in sexual orientation would necessary require that gay man would have the qualities. [b]"He can't reproduce if he is only attracted to men so why would his DNA make him a guy?"[/b] Homosexuals are not sterile. [b]The thing is, it doesn't make since for a GENETICALLY homosexual not be able to reproduce with other GENETICALLY homosexuals.[/b] Con never explains this statement, just merely asserts it. The majority of con's points are non sequitur and are borderline incoherent. He has done nothing to counter the strong link between genetics and sexual orientation I have provided.

Title: Sexuality is a Choice Content: ~"My opponent claims that a person's sexuality, that is to say the trigger of sexual feelings is decided by deliberate choice. Decide to be gay, and you will find yourself feeling sexual desire for people of the same gender." Please reproduce IN FULL where I have EVER said that sexuality is a choice. I NEVER have. Homosexuality (which is a misnomer as people of the same sex cannot breed which is what sexuality refers to) is a choice. ANY sexual act is a choice. Sexuality (heterosexuality) is not a choice but a default setting. Unless my opponent can show that I HAVE argued that sexuality is a choice he does not EVEN have a challenge, let alone an argument.

Title: Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' Content: Twin StudiesMy opponent claims that because identical twins share the same DNA, they should both have the same sex orientation, but they don't. Therefore, he claims, it must be environmental. This has a number of problems to it. First, making a point against the notion: "Homosexuals are born that way" does not automatically prove your argument. For example, I could say "Because identical twins don't have the same sexuality, it can't be genes, it must be flying dinosaurs.", and it would still follow the same logic you have used. Second, people who have gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for these types of scientific studies, which can cause the results to become skewed.I agree, sexual orientation is not entirely due to DNA. That does not mean, however, that it is automatically environmental. Hormones play a major part in determining gender as well as sexual orientation, namely, the hormones the baby is exposed to in the womb. When in the womb, all babies are female, and in order to become male require hormones, namely testosterone. It is entirely possible that in the case of twins, one twin is exposed to less testosterone than the other. This is how you get fraternal twins. If for whatever reason onebaby was exposed to less testosterone than the other but both came out as male, the one who received less testosterone is more likely to be gay. The flip side applies for girls. Gay ParentsMy opponent claims through this study that gay parents are more likely to have homosexual kids than straight parents do, and therefore the gay parents must somehow influencing their kid to also become gay. There are also a number or issues with this conclusion. First, again, gay people are more likely to volunteer for/agree to these kinds of studies, again making the test pool skewed. Second, it is also entirely possible that the child is biologically related to one of the parents, and that "homosexual gene" (to kind of over-simplify it) may have been passed down to the child.Reorientation TherapyThe way reorientation therapy works is that they give the "patient" a positive stimulus when they have lustful thoughts for the opposite sex and negative stimulus for when they have lustful thoughts for the same sex. They also may fill them up with estrogen/testosterone in an attempt to make them find the opposite sex more attractive. However, it has been shown time and time again that this does not work. The first and main reason is that homosexuality is not psychosis. Again, if my opponent is saying that homosexuality is mutable, he is also implying that it is some sort of disease. Homosexuality is NOT a disease, if it was a disease, psychologists or doctors would be easily be able to discern them from straight people. But they can't, as seen in a study of I can't recall the name but it was mentioned in a This American Life's episode 81 words. I will however, provide a similar study below.A recent APA task force did a study on this and found in their 2009 report that the participants in their study went through gay conversion therapy and came out negligibly more attracted to the opposite sex and remained just as attracted to the same sex. On the other hand, what did change was the patients state of mental health, as the side effects of such therapy's were loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality and anxiety.A lot of these studies that my opponent mentioned have a number of issues. From 1960 to 2007 only 83 studies confirm my opponents case, of which most had biases such as a court ordering that compelled them to take the therapy or a very small, low budget test pool. Also, a lot of footnotes here, did you just copy and paste this stuff? Because if you did, please stop, I will not debate with a website.Animals "There is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. There are no known animals who have *long term* homosexual relationships. What occurs in animals is not directly applicable to what occurs in humans."This statement has a number of issues. First, there are known animals who have long term homosexual relationships, a lot actually, namely geese and duck (who mate for life), dwarf chimpanzees (all of which, that's right, all, are bisexual), swans (also mate for life), domestic cats (mate for life), and lions (mate for life), to name a few. Second, my opponent forgets that humans are also animals. What applies to animals may also apply to humans, we are not suddenly above anything animal relate just because we are humans. This is why we do drug tests on mice; they 80% related to humans.I forgot to put sources last time, I put them here this time. Sorry!http://listverse.com...http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...http://www.livescience.com...http://www.frc.org...http://www.bestmedicaldegrees.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.wehonews.com...http://www.thisamericanlife.org...

Title: Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and the... Content: Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and their upbringing will not be affect their sexuality. Attempting to suppress this genetic predisposition has resulted in great misery for many people. Rather, we should accept this and look to embrace all gay people fully – which must include celebrating gay role models, especially as responsible parents.

Title: There is no such thing as gay "marriage!" Content: Thank you for you argument. Your points are very valid. "Biological gender is set in the first trimester of pregnancy; psychological gender is set in the second,"I don't buy into this "psychological gender" thing. Sure a male person could have female characteristics or a female person have male characteristics and there is nothing inherently wrong with that, BUT just because they feel they are something else does not mean they are. A person can think they are a dog but does that make you a dog. the mind can be decieving. Just because you think you are male/female does not mean you are."If homosexuality was a choice then why would the percentage around the world be so similar? Because this is something that is predetermined, just like you gender, hair color, eye color, so on."The reason why the amount of homosexuals is roughly the same is due to the fact that still many homosexuals remain in the closet afraid to come out because they are afraid of their parents disowning them or being looked down upon by soceity (ps. I am not condoning people crude behaviour towards homosexuals).Homosexuality is not predetermined because there are many ex-gays who now live heterosexual lives. However, you cannot change your eye colour, hair colour or gender. You may be able to get contact lenses, dye your hair or become transgender but no matter what you do, your genetics can never change. Your blue eye contact lenses will not replace your natural brown eyes, you blonde hair dye will not replace your natural brown hair and you getting a few more hormones injected into yourself will not get rid of your XX or XY chromosomes. However, with homosexuality, how come their offspring never become homosexual themselves? How come they always come from straight parents? This comes to prove homosexuality is a choice rather than a predetermined factor. And also, Christians as well as other religious people and God would not condemn homosexuals if homosexuality were actually hereditary."Now for the hypothetical situations and questions. Say you were a man in love with women. Most other people in the world are gay or lesbian. You can't help it. You can't choose to love another man the same way. Just like you can't pick your race, you can't just pick and choose your sexuality."If most other people in the world were gay, this would spark a huge problem. We would have an ageing population and then very soon after the human race would crumble away. The phrase "I can't help myself," is what everyone uses when they do something bad. Let's say the adulterer says to their spouse, "oh I just couldn't help myself," does that make it acceptable? Most people would say no. Only you are in control of your emotions and you can't let them get the best of you. And I always see homosexuals trying to use the race card when it comes to justifying their lifestyle. Yes you can't pick your race, but like I said above, if homosexuality were hereditary, Christians, the Bible and God would not condemn those who were. It would make no logical sense because God loves everybody regardless of their sexual orientation."I'm actually a gay woman and if I could, I'd most definitely decide to be straight."You can choose to be straight. No one is stopping you. You just choose not to because you accept the fact that this is who you are. I garuntee if you spend time with the Lord in prayer, he will help you."But why is that? The prejudice and discrimination against LGBT+ people is unbelievable!"I agree. I hate it when people dicriminate against homosexuals- especially Christians because that is not the attitude they should be having. As Christians we are supposed to love others, whether we agree with their lifestyle or not. But you've got to remember, no all Christians who disagree with homosexuality are being discriminatory. Discrimination os the unfair treatment of someone in favour of another that can be based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation as well as other factors. If you simply disagree with homosexuality, there is no discrimination nor prejudice in that, just like if you simply disagree with abortion does not mean you're discriminating. It all depend on how you carry out your beliefs."Nearly a fifth of students are physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation and over a tenth because of their gender expression."About two-thirds of LGBT students reported having ever been sexually harassed (e.g., sexual remarks made, being touched inappropriately) in school in the past year.""The average GPA for students who were frequently physically harassed because of their sexual orientation was half a grade lower than that of other students." [2]"Would someone really want to be embarrassed, condemned, and harassed due to their sexuality?"Of course not. These cases are unbelievable and should no be tolerated, but pro-gays and gays think they are the ony ones affected by this. Chrststians can be discriminated against as well:1.) "Gay' activists kill cash sources for Christian charities. Internet-based campaigns scare away corporate donors with 'hate group' charge http://www.wnd.com...; 2.) "Police are searching for the culprits who threw concrete bricks through the door and windows of a Christian facility in Illinois as it prepared for a banquet for a group dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda . . . LaBarbera notes that a left-wing website with a letter from a group of homosexuals taking credit for the attack warns that more will follow if the host site for the banquet does not disassociate from its featured speaker, Scott Lively, and AFTAH. http://www.onenewsnow.com...; "Homosexual activists are pressuring PayPal to not handle donations made to groups that promote traditional values . . . Founder Peter LaBarbera [of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality] refers to it as "homofascism in action," as it asks people to stop financially supporting Christian groups, which the homosexual activists refer to as "hate groups." http://www.onenewsnow.com... "PayPal officially states that its users "may not use the PayPal service for activities that [ . . . ] promote hate, violence, racial intolerance" but PayPal has become a favorite payment service for anti-LGBT extremists all over the world. PayPal must act immediately to shut down their accounts and ban all sites that promote anti-LGBT hate. http://allout.org...; But people seem to ignore discrimination Christians face. "The Declaration of Independence states that "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [3] So why don't we grant these unalienable rights? For this part, I'll focus on liberty."Note that the Declaration of Independence- a secular decleration uses the term, "Creator" and even in a capital C, I have a feeling this might be God as only He is called the Creator. And you're right. Everyone deserves liberty- even homosexuals, but liberty does not mean giving people something they simply cannot have."Should gay couples be barred from marriage? If they are then that's oppression by authority on one's way of life and behavior. Straight couples are allowed to marry freely, so what makes people think that gay couples should be treated as lesser and unable to marry in some parts of the world?"Gay couples can have Civil Partnerships (though I also don't agree with them) or a domestic union, whatever you want to call it, but those are not the sme as a marriage. Marriage is about more than just signing a contract, living together and loving each other. The real defintion of marriage is bout bring each other closer to God, raising children in an Godly environment as well as dwelling with each other and loving one another unconditionally for life. "Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the 'separation of church and state.' Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of 'blue laws' is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion." [6]"So why did the U.S. prohibit gay marriage in all 50 states up until summer of 2015? It's unconstitutional to do this, as we have separation of church and state."You don't have to be religious to oppose gay marriage. There are lots of secular people who disagree with gay marriage. The government could have barred in in a state because of this."Marriage - the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship. [11]""We simply could stop it there, as the definition does, in fact, include same-sex couples,"Yes but note it says, "in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex." This comes to show that even though humanity has redefined the defintion of marriage, it has been and will always be primarily thought of as between one MAN and one WOMAN. And besides, just because the government thinks they can redefine marriage does not mean they actually can. I don't buy into that. GOD created marriage, not man. We have NO authority to redefine it. No matter what the Crown Court or Supreme Court says, the REAL definition of marriage will always be between a man and a woman.I wish I could cover your other arguments but I am running out of characters. So for my conclusion. I don't believe ther is such thing as gay marriage because that is not the way it has always been. Marriage before recently was always seen as a union between an man and a woman.

Title: Gay Rights. Content: I'd kind of agree with that. My theory is that gays are born gay. I think that maybe you can decide that you're gay if you're questioning but for the most part they are born with it. Haha this is more like a conversation not a debate!

Title: homosexuals should have the same rights as anyone else, including marriage Content: There is no evidence that people are born gay. Until anyone can prove that there is a definitive "gay" gene, then I will always believe that no one is born homosexual but that it is a choice.

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: I am against the notion that a person's sexual orientation is a choice. I would like to debate this topic with an opponent and see what has to be said by an opposing view. The debate will go as follows Round 1: Opening statement Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing statement

Title: Homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. Content: Con begins his round by trying to establish that sexual orientation is not hereditary and subject to a large number of variables. While I do think that biology plays a part in sexual orientation, I definitely agree that nature AND nurture play a role. The study Con presented (Exotic Becomes Erotic) explains the same thing, with the author noting that children's temperment is influenced by biological variables such as genetic factors that contribute to their childhood gender identity. Regardless, this is entirely irrelevant to the debate. What causes homosexuality is not up for question; whether or not gay people can be good parents is. As such, I don't need to respond to any of this unless Con explains why it's relevant. Con tries to divert attention away from the resolution and focus on other anti-gay sentiments, such as suggesting that gay people have a higher suicide rate than others, and then demanding I prove that social stigmas aren't to blame. Let me be clear: If Con really wants to debate why the suicide rate for LGBT people is higher - in other words, if he thinks discrimination and social stigmas aren't to blame - I would love the opportunity to inundate him with fact after fact from innumerable sources explaining why he'd be embarrasingly wrong. Let's debate that next. However again, this has nothing to do with the current resolution unless Con's point is to suggest that gay parents are likely (not more likely) to kill themselves. In that case, I welcome him to find cases where gay parents committed suicide, and include them as sources in his next round. I will address them then. Otherwise, this has been a complete waste of time and character space.Now let's move on to my contentions and I'll highlight my opponent's rebuttals. 1. PRO: Gay people are functioning members of society... None of the qualities associated with good parents are exclusive to heterosexuals. CON: That is generally not the case... --> If Con thinks that there are qualities or attributes that a straight person can posess that make them a good parent that gay people can NOT possess, he needs to include what those specific traits are. Otherwise this point is in favor of Pro. 2. PRO: A parent's sexual endeavors have little to no impact on their ability to raise a child.--> Con dropped this, so the point goes to Pro. 3. PRO: Two parents are better than one - it doesn't matter if the parents are gay (study confirms). CON: "Of course having a two-parent family is better than one. The economic benefits alone help children. Irrelevant."--> No, it's relevant because two gay parents can raise children just as well as two staight parents. I've included a psychological study that confirmed this. Con seems to agree. The point goes to Pro. 4. PRO: Gay parents tend to exude greater commitment and more involvement considering 50% of heterosexual's pregnancy's are unplanned.CON: "This is ridiculous; simply because it is a problem does not mean it is inherent in that entire style of relationship..."--> Basically Con just negated the entire idea that gays would make subpar parents due to potential depression (as he insinuated at the beginning of the debate). If Con doesn't think we should consider this fact, then Con cannot take anecdotal instances of depression or any negative factor and apply it to gay parenting as a whole. Instead, we must look at how one's sexuality in general affects the ability to parent. I will agree to drop this contention on the basis that Con's response to it has negated several of his own arguments anyhow. Also, I messed up with numbering in previous rounds, so let's drop this and move on to the other #4...4. PRO: There are innumerable people raised by gay parents who turn out perfectly well adjusted, and note that they didn't miss out on any father/ mother figures in their life.CON: "Anecdotal evidence doesn't matter." Fathers and mothers are not interchangable... --> The real purpose of this point was to combat the notion that children needed two opposite-sex parental figures in order to gain certain benefits. Con mentioned that "rough and tumble" play with their fathers provides children with a variable resource. In looking at the source from Con, there is absolutely nothing in there that explains why a child's biological father is necessary or even more valuable than having simply a male figure and role model around. For instance if one's biological father was a drug addict, they wouldn't be preferable male role models. Con also notes that "presence of the natural father was the most significant factor in reducing rates of early sexual activity and rates of teenage pregnancy in girls." However other studies note that compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They also have higher self-esteem and confidence, and tend to break rules less, indicating that teen pregnancy is likely not in the cards [7]. This debate is about one's sexual orientation affecting their ability to parent - not whether or not you can have the same biological ties to someone who is not related to you (obviously not). As such, I haven't seen any evidence that fathers and mothers aren't interchangeable insofar as being positive male/ female role models. 5. PRO: Environment in general plays a role in a child's upbringing; it's not limited specifically to the parents. Con must explain how a parent's sexuality, either homo or hetero, has a specific impact on a child's behavior.--> Con dropped this. The point goes to Pro.6. PRO: Potentially teasing the kids is a terrible and irrelevant contention... --> Con dropped this, so he must agree. 7. PRO: "The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way. In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures..." I included multiple sources noting that just about every study on gay parenting found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents. CON: "Copied and pasted from source." --> My opponent pointed out that I copied and pasted a sentence from a source. Considering I sourced the sentence, that isn't remotely problematic. On the other hand, it's really sad that Con dropped every single study and every single fact backing up my case for no apparent reason. As we can see, these studies are the meat and potatoes of the debate. My opponent cannot compete with the fact that science and psychology are on my side. [ CONCLUSION ] Con hasn't denied that the vast consensus of ALL studies show that there is NO inherent harm in same-sex parenting. He hasn't denied that homosexuals can possess any quality a heterosexual can in terms of attributes that contribute to good parenting. He hasn't remotely contested the legitimacy of the studies, considering there are dozens that take into account hundreds of cases of kids with gay parents. Ergo, Con acknowledges that research indicates that kids of gay parents show no differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures. Meanwhile, the research also incidcates that there are BENEFITS to same-sex parenting. Con's only rebuttal included the notion that fathers are important for rough and tumble play and to decrease the chances of teen pregnancy. I pointed out that you can have the benefits of male and female role models without having them be parents. It takes a village to raise a child, as indicated by my study that parents aren't the be-all and end-all in terms of development. The resolution has been affirmed.[7] http://www.care2.com...

Title: Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' Content: Hi, I will be arguing that homosexuals are "born that way"When my opponent says that homosexuals are not "born that way", he is implying that such a sexual orientation is artificial in one way or another. He says that "Environmental factors are the main reason homosexual tendencies develop". Now if this were true, we would see a certain demographic of homosexual people. For example, if exposure to, say, pine trees gives people a higher chance of being gay, then we would see people who live near pine trees or are otherwise regularly exposed to pine trees would be statistically "more gay" than people who aren't very much involved with pine trees. My point is, all gay people would have something in common environmentally, be it where they live or how they were raised, etc. However, we don't see that. There are homosexuals from an enormous range of demographics, such as from poor gays to rich gays to Chinese gays to American gays to famous gays to celebrity gays to atheist gays and to religious gays. If homosexuality was not inborn but was affected by environmental factors, there wouldn't be homosexuals with such a diverse array of backgrounds. All homosexuals do have something in common with each other, however, and that is their chromosomes. Scientists tested 400 gay men and found that homosexuality can be associated with at least two chromosomes, which affect a man's sexual orientation. In 1993 Dean Hamer studied the family history of 100 gay men and found that homosexuality tended to be inherited. More than 10% of brothers of gay men were also gay (compared to 3% of the population), and uncles and male cousins on the mother's side also had a higher chance of being gay. Hamer, upon analyzing the X-chromosome, found that 33 out of 40 gay brothers had similar marks on a certain region on the chromosome. That is not to say that homosexuality is entirely genetics, it also involves other factors such as the amount of hormones the baby was exposed to in the womb.If homosexuality was affected by environmental factors, lesbians would be the same in every way biologically to straight women, and gay men would also be in every way biologically the same as straight men. However, this is not the case. Testosterone is commonly associated to spatial reasoning. When put under a spatial reasoning test, gay men tended to do worse than straight men, and lesbians tended to do better than straight women. Gay men are 31% more likely to be left handed than straight men, and lesbians are 91% more likely to be left handed than straight women. The more older brothers a male has, the higher chance that male has of being gay. This is because after giving birth to a male, the mother's body may resist the production of another male baby and can change the sexual orientation of that baby. The way this happens was explained above throughout the chromosome region. In gay men and heterosexual women, the two sides of the brain were about the same size, while in gay women and heterosexual men, the right side of the brain was slightly larger. What does this all suggest? Gay men share traits with straight women, and gay women share traits with straight men. As such, homosexuality cannot be a product of the environment.When my opponent says that homosexuality is mutable, he implies one of three things: 1. Homosexuality is a choice 2. Homosexuality is a disease. 3. Homosexuality is evolutionarily advantageous.My opponent clearly states that he is not arguing that homosexuality is a choice, so #1 is out. Homosexuality is definitely not evolutionarily advantageous, as homosexuals can't mate, so #3 is out. What we are left with is #2, which says homosexuality is a disease. Now this may be a little provocative, and I hope not to insult anyone, but this is what I have deduced from my opponent's claim that homosexuality is mutable. This was my thought process:-Opponent claims homosexuality is mutable, or can be changed-Other things that are also mutable in terms of humans are choices, diseases (both biological and psychological), and some evolutionary adaptations.-Opponent clearly states that he is not arguing homosexuality is a choice. Cross choice out-Homosexuality is not evolutionary advantageous, as homosexuals can't mate. Cross that out-Disease is left. -Ergo, the statement "homosexuality is a mutable" implies that homosexuality is a disease.Now I don't know if Pro meant to imply this, and I'm sorry if he didn't, but homosexuality is clearly not a disease as proven by the above evidence. Gay conversion therapy exists, but these programs have a 3% percent "success" rate, and these success tended to be religiously correlated, whether it be the "cured" converts to a religion that disallow homosexuality or he/she is already involved in a religion that disallows homosexuality.To extended the diversity argument, over 1500 species have been found to have homosexual tendencies. Now these animals range from dwarf monkeys to lions to bison to geese to penguins and to dolphins. Now all of these animals live in completely different parts of the globe. How would it be possible that homosexual tendencies can be found in 1500 species from all over the globe if environmental factors are responsible for it?

Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: I believe my point may have been misunderstood: Sexual orientation doesn't originate ONLY from biology. Sexual orientation is a multivariable dynamic process. Of course there are some biological factors that influence sexual orientation, such as: - Genetics - Epigenetics (prenatal androgen exposure) - Brain structures Biology has a great influence on sexual orientation. But not everything is as it seems. 1) A study from Denmark proves that the environment increases or decreases the proportion of heterosexual and homosexual weddings. What did this study find? - Demography: People in cities are more likely to marry a same-sex partner and less likely to marry heterosexually. - Family issues - Having no brothers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2) Younger men from the Sambia tribe fellate other adult men as a rite of passage. 3) The greeks were equally comfortable with the same-sex and that helped the formation of more "men on men" action. And finally this one, which i think isn't that good but can raise an interesting topic: 4) Homophobia is for some a latent homosexuality. By now all i can say is that homophobia correlates with homosexual arousal. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Are the people in 4 homosexual? Is homosexuality defined by conduct or is it enough if we consider physiological response? I believe sexual orientation is a social construct. So it doesn't really matter how you identify yourself, what matters is whether or not you are taking every aspect of yourself into account, or maybe just letting it be.

Title: born gay Content: Being born gay means that you at birth are attracted to the same sex, which, is not true. Being gay is about how you perceived life and your ethics and codes that you now live by.

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S. Content: Pro says that homosexuals are born that way, despite giving no evidence to support the claim. 1. People aren't born homosexual The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence denies the existence of a "gay gene." This is illustrated through the following report by the daily caller. "Journalists trumpet every biological study that even hints that gayness and straightness might be hard-wired, but they show little interest in the abundant social-science research showing that sexual orientation cannot be innate. The scholars I interviewed for this essay were variously dismayed or appalled by this trend. For example, historian Dr. Martin Duberman, founder of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, said "no good scientific work establishes that people are born gay or straight." And cultural anthropologist Dr. Esther Newton (University of Michigan) called one study linking sexual orientation to biological traits ludicrous: "Any anthropologist who has looked cross-culturally (knows) it"s impossible that that"s true, because sexuality is structured in such different ways in different cultures." While biology certainly plays a role in sexual behavior, no "gay gene" has been found" [1] 2. Even if people are born with homosexual urges, they shouldn't act out on them. My opponent didn't address the point I made in my last speech, showing that some people are born with tendency to become angry more easily. However, just because a feeling exists does not mean you should act on it. Pro asks how I know homosexual behavior is destructive. I will refer my opponent back up to my conceded first contention, where i demonstrated that homosexuality increases STD's, suicide rates, and damages the immune system. Furthermore, it is gateway toward the legalization of beastiality and polygamy. Sources 1. http://dailycaller.com...

Title: Being gay is not a choice made by the individual. Content: Seriously? For real. Are you serious? Obviously being a homosexual is a choice. No one is born gay. You said ones sexual orientation is based on their parents. You are right That doesn't mean that it is not a choice. It is their parents choice thast they make their kid gay. As for the kid. As young as 12, they know that being gay is a very controversal thing, and their parents have no right to tell them whether or not they can dig Women, or Shlongs. I am keeping this short, so heres a summary. 1. The parents decide if the parents are gay 2. The kid can decide his own sexuality 3. The parents choice doesnt matter 4. And it doesnt matter because this isnt only about children, but gayness in general 5. That being said, I know plenty of gay people who decided to be gay on their own accord.

Title: People can be born Homosexual. Content: I disagree that people can be "born homosexual" because it doesn't make sense for a baby to have feelings towards their same gender at their time period. Its imposable to be born as anything. If people are homosexual maybe its because of their experiences in their life but it makes no sense for a person to be born as a homosexual.

Title: People are Born Gay Content: My opponent has failed to provide any proof to his claims. A person is not born gay. It is out of choice for a person to be gay. I will leave it at that. Hopefully the Pro/for can provide a better argument that I may counter.

Title: Being gay is a choice, God did not "make" them that way Content: Your position is wrong in three critical ways. 1) Homosexuality isn't a choice. In fact, fMRI scans seem to indicate a very directly that there is no choice involved. There are actually brain differences which result in the attraction to one gender or another and those difference can be in either sex. Just as I never choose to be straight, I'm certain other people didn't choose to be gay. There are probably a few genes which may increase the chances of being born homosexual just as there are genes to increase the chances of being left-handed, but nothing to imply that it's a chosen behavior. 2) There is no God. It's part of the topic and relevant to note, but to say that God did something requires a considerable amount of evidence and I am certain you do not have any evidence, much less the considerable amount required to make such a claim. 3) Although, it is rather tangentially to the topic at hand there is an underlying impression that if homosexuality is a choice that it is somehow evil or wrong or something. Whereas even if it were a choice, it would still be an acceptable choice. Some genes tend to control one thing directly, other genes tend to work in a number of subtle ways in conjunction with other genes and piecing them together is going to take a long time. However, we can be sure that brain scans are accurate and that there is no conscious triggering of attraction cues. It takes about half a second before people can make a conscious choice, however faster than that a number of attraction cues and neural activity triggers. These triggers to an attractive male stimuli are the same for heterosexual women and homosexual man and all occur prior to conscious reaction. Furthermore, there are many examples of homosexual activity in nature, from monogamous male penguins to purely bisexual bonobos. A couple years back we even found a single gene trigger in fruit flies which makes them gay. Honestly, gene one way it would mate with a female fruit fly, the other way and it goes after male fruit flies. Firstly, there is no fault in being gay, there is just being gay. Fault implies there's something wrong with it. Secondly, we can tell through the biological tools we have today that homosexuality is biologically based, with perhaps some genetic components, but is, in fact, inborn and probably takes place during brain development. The youngest son a woman has, has an 5% chance rather than the typical 3% of being born homosexual, in a statistically significant study published a year ago. I fully understand and respect your need to toss around God this and God that in order to find justification for your bias and bigotry. However, the underlying facts simply aren't there. Homosexuality is an inborn neural quality of many species and your mythological characters don't change the facts behind the issue. Moreover, to say that homosexuality is a choice because God wouldn't create homosexuals homosexual, because that would be against God's law. This actually makes every claim needed to provide a good argument that your God doesn't exist. All one needs to do is look at the iron-clad evidence that homosexuality is not a choice and your bigoted view of a God who hates homosexuals and would never create them, to realize that there is a contradiction here. And when you're choosing which premise to knock down the one with the iron-clad backing is not a good choice. Perhaps there is a God, but it certainly wouldn't be your hate-filled gay-hating deity, because we live in a world where homosexuality is not a choice. Finally you rest this argument on some rather silly logic that if God was creating homosexuals this would make no sense because why would God create people just to burn them in hell? Well, if this actually was your God's goal, why not have one shred of reasonable evidence for his existence? I mean, such a deity shouldn't allow for reasonable unbelief when any unbelief results in eternal punishment and torture. In fact, your God shouldn't make anybody who will not end up in heaven. If God knows what a person will do, and knows that they will end up in hell because of disbelief or homosexuality they shouldn't be made in the first place. You're condemning people on the grounds that you're God is twisted and makes little logical sense. You are resting your opinions about homosexual on theological reasons. Even if you ignore the tortured theology which got you there, you can't dismiss the overwhelming evidence that you're simply wrong. There is very good evidence that homosexuality and heterosexuality is inborn, exists in nature, and establishes itself during brain development.

Title: Sexuality is a Choice Content: My opponent claims that a person's sexuality, that is to say the trigger of sexual feelings is decided by deliberate choice. Decide to be gay, and you will find yourself feeling sexual desire for people of the same gender. I have argued consistently that is utterly false. The following arguments spring to mind, I, nor anyone else can remember a previous asexual period where we made a cold calculating deliberate choice to establish our sexuality. From what I can tell from personal experience sexual feelings arose unbidden. My opponents argument denies the existence of homosexuals who are wracked by fear or guilt and so keep their sexuality hidden. If sexuality was a choice why would they just select one more pleasing to their friends, family, or society. If sexuality were a choice might not certain liberally minded people chop and change on a whim, or choose permanently to be bisexual to experience as much as possible? What of paedophiles who are able to understand that their sexuality is 'wrong' and so demand treatment, or beg not to be released at the end of their sentence. If sexuality were a choice why not simply choose one more becoming? My opponent however is adamant that sexuality is a choice, so I look forward to his argument and rebuttal.

Title: Being gay is not a choice. Content: Clarifications: My opponent denies the MEDICAL DEFINITION of homosexuality in favor of the *Wikipedia* definition. Clearly the proper medical definition should prevail in this debate; the only reason Con refuses to accept it is because he cannot win this debate unless the definition is skewed in his favor. The purpose of the debate is to affirm or negate the resolution. Both the instigator and contender should give definitions that are applicable to the resolution. The audience should decide which one is the proper term. Again, Con's explanation is from Wikipedia; mine is from the medical community. Moreover, this debate isn't so much about homosexuality as it is about being gay (homosexual). So, even if *homosexuality* is defined as the romantic or sexual attraction towards members of the same sex, the fact remains that being a homosexual merely means possessing those feelings - or being inclined to possess those feelings - not necessarily acting on them. So, one might be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc. without ever having sex; it's all about how your brain is wired to act (what it is built to respond to). Rebuttal: 2. Suicide Con begins, "Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all." That is completely false. If there is a gay gene (which many scientists agree there is), it means that infants are born gay -- that is, predisposed to homosexuality. It is the *genes* and other *biological determinants* that influence sexuality. In fact, as my sources have pointed out (which Con did not negate at all), scientists have now discovered various links and patterns related to homosexuality that explains why the "gay gene" can and does get passed on and to whom. Further, "Sexual health is more than the absence of sexual pathology. The anatomy, gender and function of the human body is the foundation of identity. The awareness of the sexual self as an integrated aspect of identity begins in INFANCY with the attitudes about the physical body" [1]. So, here we can see that Con's contention that infants are without sexuality is blatantly false, and my notion that infants do not have the mental or physical capacity to commit suicide stands. 3. Seclusion Con writes, "How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with?" In other words, Con is saying that if one is not having sex with anyone, then one does not have a sexuality... so they aren't gay or straight. Again, that is incredibly FALSE. Ladies and gentlemen, you only have to consider your own sexuality to determine the validity of this statement. Before you ever had sex (or for those of you who are still virgins) -- don't you know what sexuality you are? Don't you know which sex or gender you're attracted to and would like to have sex with? If so, you're acknowledging that one can absolutely be considered gay or straight before they ever have sex, or even if they deny themselves sex or choose not to have sex. Con asks, "Why would a person in seclusion possibly fit the definition of "homosexual?" Even using Con's completely flawed definition of homosexuality -- having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex -- we can see how obviously someone who is living in seclusion can still be gay! It only requires having romantic or SEXUAL ATTRACTION to someone of the same sex. That "someone" can be a celebrity, porn star or even fictional person that one masturbates to. The point is: even in seclusion, one can still have sexual attractions or thoughts. If it's for someone of the same sex/gender, then they're gay by both Pro's and Con's presented definitions. Con's argument fails. 4. Sedation Con writes, "Genetics and non-neurological biology are irrelevant to the definition at hand. A person can be sedated before ever being gay in the first place." Again, this is completely FALSE. I've already explained and proven via scientific data that sexuality is most definitely linked to genetics and other biological factors. This is common sense and information learned in every 8th grade health class. Your brain and bodily functions are responsible for sexual attraction and intercourse. We have a reproductive system for a reason; that system is led by none other than the brain. Also, I don't understand why Con's neglecting my example of someone having sex while sedated. Fortunately it's not a major part of my case. Anyway, further proof: Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain. Key areas for future research include the neurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality [2]. Arguments: 1. Rape When presented with my example of rape (which fits the parameters of Con's flawed definition), Con's only response was, "As this is a rare situation, it cannot be used to affirm a general resolution." Fellow debaters, please consider the debates you have read and participated in here on DDO. Is that a true statement? Absolutely not. A resolution is general, yes, but rare examples can absolutely be used as evidence for either side. Furthermore, rape is not as rare or extreme as my opponent would like you to believe; 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men are sexually abused per year [3]. 2. Being Once again, even if someone commits suicide before having gay sex, they are still gay beings (they may simply not be sexually active gay beings, the same way heterosexuals can be straight but not sexually active). As such, if one commits suicide to prevent themselves from being gay, they're still gay before committing the suicide. Again, the only way Con can win this point is to prove that homosexuality is not genetic or determinant on any biological factors. Of course this is impossible to prove and as such my point stands. 3. Biology The point of this contention was to prove how homosexuality is linked to biology and as such it affirms all of my others points. Counter-Examples: Being Pro or Con is irrelevant. Each side has an equal burden of proof. Con says that he only needs one counter-example to disprove the resolution, which he has given in terms of suicide and sedation. Why should Con's extreme examples be considered but my more common example of rape should not? That is a double standard certainly not supported by any debate etiquette or paradigms; Con's simply trying to help further his failed position. Nevertheless, the resolution is entirely true. Conclusion: Medical evidence supports the theory that people are born predisposed to homosexuality (being attracted to the same sex). Before one acknowledges their sexual identity, they are still privy to their sexuality -- they are simply unaware of it yet or not yet biologically inclined towards sex. This applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Just because one might be a virgin, secluded or sedated does not mean that they are not gay; it just means that they're not having gay sex. While secluded, one may very well still have gay feelings (which even supports Con's definition). If one chooses death, they may very well choose to cease being gay; however, cannot deter from the fact that they were gay up until the time they were dead. So, if an individual is gay for *any moment in time* I argue that it is not their choice. The resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.ejhs.org... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [3] http://www.rainn.org...

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: Now onto the argument. Gregory Herek, a UC Davis psychology professor, claimed that 95 percent of the self-identified gay men in a study he conducted, and 80 to 90 percent of the lesbians, believed they had little or no choice in their sexual orientation. [1] Gays and lesbians commonly have heterosexual partners at some point in life - often due to youthful uncertainty and social pressures - but, most people ultimately can define their own sexuality. Another report; delivered by Jerome Goldstein, M. D. , a board-certified medical neurologist and Director of the San Francisco Clinical Research Center, states that Sexual orientation is neurobiological and is set at birth. [2] Goldstein later goes on to say that brains of people of different sexual orientations " gay, straight, and bisexual " work in different ways. most people do not seem to recall ever making such a choice. While this does not prove that it is not a choice, the fact that people seem unable to point to making such a choice does provide support for the claim that it is not a matter of choice. Do heterosexual men and women think about their orientation, or does it just come "naturally"? Personally, I have no awareness that I chose to be straight. I also have no awareness of selecting my preferences in regards to the type of women I am attracted to. For example, I have a general preference towards woman with blonde hair. However, that does not seem to be something I selected. I cannot think of consciously deciding that I would find dark hair somewhat more appealing than lighter hair, I just do. If orientation were a choice, then a straight person should be able to choose to be gay and vice versa. A person can, obviously, test this by trying to switch his/her orientation. If my opponent/viewers of this debate are heterosexual, I urge you to give it a try and see if you can change preference. . It does not come natural. Another argument would be that if sexual preference is a matter of choice, it does seem a little bit odd that people would not decide to be heterosexual when people were (and still to this day are) persecuted and even killed for being homosexuals. It would make no sense to endure such treatment when a person could simply decide to not be that way. Of course, this argument is not decisive. .. but it is a point to be noticed. In my opinion, sexual orientation is innate but latent emerging slowly as the person develops. This is my opening argument, I await and look forward to seeing what my opponent has to say. [1] . http://www.sfgate.com... [2] . http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...

Title: born a way Content: are you also saying that your not born with a personality??? none of my family members or friends are trans or gay and I have always been gay. Yes it's in the genes Most homosexual people are in fact born that way, others may pick to be gay or have things that occur during their life that takes them that direction sexually. There is so much proof that people are born gay these days that people that do not believe it really just have their heads stuck in the sand, we need to be more open and loving to everyone's sexual desires as long as they are legal. Only straight people don't think so. The only people who ever argue that you aren't born gay, but get 'seduced' into the lifestyle are people who say they are straight. Since they aren't gay.

Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are. I'm not able to process that through my head correctly, one because determined means strongly felt and mostly likely not to change it. So, say one's into women and all of sudden one figures themselves out due to whatever the reasoning may be, you mean to inform me that one isn't changing their mind or ways? You began to question your sexuality, right? But you also said "I simply realized hey I don't really like anyone" You're making a change. You said "As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are." No, that's one changing their ways.

Title: Homosexuality is a Choice. Content: As the Pro did not post a third round rebuttal, this argument will be a closing statement. Homosexuality, being the attraction to a member of the same sex, is not a choice. There may not be definite concrete evidence to directly prove it to be genetic, but, there is definitely more than enough to indirectly prove it to not be a choice. That is the argument here. To start, there is all of the scientific studies done which were listed previously. The twin study, which concluded with results (a 52% chance of the second of an identical twin set to be gay if one is gay, and a 22% chance for the second to be gay in fraternal twins) that would just not have been the case if genetics played no role in sexuality. (1) Homosexuals also have different brain structures than heterosexuals. Gay men's brains more resembling that of a straight woman and lesbian women having brains resembling those of straight men. (1) How is it even humanly possible for someone to make a choice on their own sometime during their teenage years and then manage to reshape their brain structure?! It is simply not a possibility. The difference in brain structure from homosexuals to heterosexuals is believed to be caused by both environmental and genetic factors. A combination of the two. This is because in twin studies, the identical twins were only both gay 52% of the time and that is a higher result than the 15% of two children who are not related whatsoever. The 22% in fraternal twins also points to a genetic cause as it would "run in the family", so to speak. (2) Lastly, conversion therapy (the next best thing to "making the choice" yourself) scarcely has success in turning a gay person straight. If it were a choice to be homosexual, then wouldn't it just take a bit of convincing, persuading and maybe some homophobia statistics to convince that person otherwise about their "choice"? If it were that simple, then there definitely wouldn't even be any gay people on the planet! Why would anyone choose to have a certain quality about them that would subject that person to judgement, hate, and even in some cases, violence? In samples of patients of conversion therapy, the best success rate found in converting homosexuals to heterosexuals was 0.5%. This occurred in eight out of 202 people who looked to Schroeder & Shidlo to change their sexuality. Unfortunately, those who claimed to manage to change had already been "ex-gays". Most other "ex-gay ministries" and other groups have success rates of a shockingly productive rate of 0%. (3) Again, if homosexuality was a choice, wouldn't it be fairly easy, or at least somewhat successful, to convince the person otherwise? Shouldn't there be something more than a generously reported 0.5% success rate?! The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Paediatrics, and The National Association of Social Workers all state that homosexuality is not something that can be treated with conversion therapy, is not a mental disease at all and therefore does not require any treatment, that sexuality is unchangeable and is not a choice. Along with all of those scientists, so many people will tell you that being gay was never a choice for them. Heterosexuals can of course say the same that it was never their choice to be straight. Tons of people know this for a fact in their hearts, and if you ask yourself the question, "When did I ever choose what gender I am attracted to?" you can find the same answer. There was never a choice. There never will be a choice. People discover their sexuality and a choice is simply not something that occurs, and people can know this even without the mounds of scientific evidence that proves the "Choice" theory blatantly incorrect. 1. http://lakeweedatarrowhead.net... 2. http://www.thetech.org... 3. http://www.religioustolerance.org...

Title: homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with Content: Since Pro has not set the BoP, we can assume that the BoP is placed on Pro. All I need to do is provide a reasonable case homosexuality is something you are not born with.My Case:I would like to assert homosexuality is caused by nurture; not nature. In biology, we learn that we have traits. These can be determined by certain factors. These factors are physical, environment, and spiritual in nature. A physical factor would be a certain level of melanin causing pigmentation. An environmental factor could be growing up in a bad place in town; causing the person to be on constant alert. A spiritual factor could be someone keeping their virginity until marriage for their religion. While some traits are brought on by physical factors, our behavior is mostly shaped by our environmental and spiritual factors. A human's sexuality falls into this category of being shaped by environmental factors. Eight major studies in identical twins show that homosexuality is not genetic. As quoted by the article:"Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.” Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.” The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors. Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other. For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says." (1)"Humans display a wide range of sexual feelings and behavior. Nowhere is this more prominent than in American culture which is saturated with images and references to sex and romantic love from television advertisements to billboard displays. Often, our identities as individuals are wrapped up with our romantic tendencies and how these play out in our relationships. Sometimes an individual’s sexual behavior is used as a barometer for his or her moral or religious beliefs. Our collective sense of how human sexuality should be expressed is revealed through the rights and liberties that structure our lives as citizens. We are sexual beings, yet this does not mean that we are born homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Our sexual expression can change over time, towards different people, through different experiences. A lack of understanding about this type of human variability often leads to a perspective that our genes define who we are. Each of the above areas of research displays findings that hinge on the assumption that a given individual’s sexual expression neatly fits into the categories “straight” and “gay.” By not considering evidence of human sexual fluidity, debates regarding origins and biology are not substantial or complete. Current efforts fail to tell the whole story. And even if we were to accept that the assigned sexual orientation of the individuals participating in these studies accurately reflected their lifelong expression, conclusive proof of a link between this and their genes has yet to be found."(2)It is clear that I have made the point that homosexuality depends on factors that are determined outside the womb. Thus, I have fulfilled my BoP. However, if my opponent still wants evidence, I'll be happy to provide Pro which such material. How can you change a person's sexuality? You can change it under the right environmental conditions. Rebuttals:Addressing opponent's 1st and 2nd argument:"But all of this evidence rests on the notion that sexual orientation is fixed and that individuals are either “straight” or “gay.” Researchers in these studies did not indicate whether individuals in their sample provided an extensive account of their sexual histories and tastes. Rather, individuals in the samples were simply asked to define their sexual orientation. In doing this, researchers set up a false dichotomy whereby the individuals studied are forced into one of two categories neither of which may accurately account for the full range of their sexual expression. Additionally, it is difficult to conclude with certainty that because a trait shows up more often among biologically-related siblings, it is inherited. In fact, many such traits appear to be linked to distinctly non-biological factors. Diet, drug addiction, religious and political orientation, and career paths are just a few of the behaviors that cluster in families due to shared social influences. Indeed, a shared environment can often produce a clustering of all types of behavior patterns. It is doubtful that any study could be designed with sufficient sensitivity to exclude this possibility. The methods used in family linkage studies, which depend upon recruitment from gay and lesbian magazines, websites, and organizations, carry a clear risk of ascertainment bias. Gay brother pairs may be more interested in responding than gay men with straight brothers, given the potential for homophobia among siblings and the substantial number of homosexuals who are “in the closet” toward their families. Twins or siblings who are both gay might find the subject interesting or already suspect a genetic basis of their shared sexual orientation, thus making them more likely to participate . In order to exclude these potentially confounding factors, more recent studies have drawn participants from random samples. A study in 2000 of 4,500 twins from the Australian Twin Registry by Bailey and colleagues showed only a 30% rate of homosexuality shared between both male and female identical twins." (2)Also, sources. Provide them. However, this proves such sources to be unfit to use.Response to argument 3:I have addressed this in my earlier argument.Response to argument 4, 5, 6, and 7:Thus, you admit some do change. This contradicts your stance that homosexuality is set from inside the womb. Also, source. Provide them.There are stories of people changing their sexuality in time; whether it be to heterosexuality of homosexuality. (3) (4) Again, this contradicts your claim. To sum them up, these are stories where the therapy actually worked and when people decided to be gay. In fact, a woman in source number four is a homosexual; yet acknowledges said therapies work in some occasions. Response to argument 8 and 9:Refer to my earlier argument.As for the "God" argument, I used to be Catholic. They taught in the Church that humans were given the right to autonomy; which is the ability to make an unbiased decision. With certain decisions, environmental factors could arise causing homosexuality; fulfilling God's right for our autonomy.I'm out of characters. I appreciate your time. Anime OP:1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com...

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: After reading popular opinion, I feel like I'm arguing the tough side here, but I WILL PREVAIL. Before I continue the debate I want to make sure everyone that might read this debate understands that I have nothing against homo-sexual people, I simply am participating in this debate out of opinion. On to the debate. I believe that sexual orientation is a choice, because of three key points: the way people are raised, what they experience in life, and what they choose to become. My first point is the ways we are raised. Every experience that we go through, affects the choices we make throughout life. From the moment we are born things start changing us. One of the ways I believe sexual orientation is chosen, is through the orientation of the parents. If you are raised by to gay parents, I am sure from the moment you are adopted they will teach you that being gay/lesbian is perfectly fine, If not even normal. Another example is if you have very lenient parents. I don't mean to say that strict parents wouldn't let their children be gay, but let's say you were raised with only one parent who had to work long hours. You would be very free to make a lot of your own choices, including sexual orientation. If you are raised and grow up with gay friends and/or family you are very likely to possibly wonder about what being gay/lesbian is like. Another example is life experiences. Many people that are "born" straight may feel confused if they grow up seeing mostly straight people, then go out on their own and see gay couples. They may "experiment" with the same gender and ultimately chose to switch orientation. As we see laws and rules regarding homo-sexuality change around the world, many people may feel like they would be more accepted if they changed sexual orientation. I understand my opponents point about trying to change my sexual orientation. I am straight , and when I thought about this I realized that I would not be able to. However, I make the point that had I been raised in a different situation I may have felt confused growing up and changed orientation. My last point for this round is the ultimate decision. What sexual orientation you chose is one of the largest choices in your life. It decides how you will act socially around other genders, and your own. If you get married, sexual orientation decides who you will possibly spend the rest of your life with. I believe that there is one moment in each of our lives when we decide what sexual orientation we are. This may occur during the anytime, but is usually during the first half of our lives. Our parents may have personal opinions, and try to raise us a certain way. This usually succeeds, because we are taught during a young very impressionable time in our lives. Our parents are the only ones around during these early years and their opinions matter the most to us during that time. I urge my opponent and others who may read this to look at their opinions and decide whether some of them may have come from your parents, because I know a lot of them have for me personally. In conclusion for this round I believe that sexual orientation is a choice. Whether this choice is made by our parents in the way they raise us, or by us after confusing life experiences depends on your personal life. Back to my opponent now.

Title: Sexuality is a Mental Defect Content: In this case, I do agree with my opponent to some degree in that sexuality is a birth trait, however, I do not agree that is a "mental defect" as my opponent so blatantly put it. I propose that there is a biological component to sexuality, however it is not a choice, and is not just a LGBTQI thing, this is a human thing, a biological human trait. Sexuality is about so much more than just sex. Sexuality also encompasses how one feels about their body, their biological sex, one's gender, one's gender identity, one's sexual orientation, one's sexual behaviors, one's values and attitudes toward sexual relationships, and any desires or fantasies or sexual preferences. This also does not include just the LGBTQI community; this also includes heterosexual individuals. Sexuality is a human trait; it is a part of everyone's life to some degree. The DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which is produced by the American Psychiatric Association, defines a mental defect as, "mental retardation, brain damage or other biological dysfunction that is associated with distress or disability causing symptoms or impairment in at least one important area of an individual's functioning." However, with sexuality, we cannot classify it as a "mental defect" as everyone has or identifies with at least one, if not all, components of sexuality, which I defined above, and sexuality is not a dysfunction, nor does it impair at least one important area of an individual's functioning. Therefore, I propose that because sexuality is a HUMAN trait and it does NOT interfere with an individual's functioning in one important aspect of that individual's life, we absolutely CANNOT classify it as a "mental defect."

Title: born a way Content: I feel that yes people are born a certain way and shouldn't be judged by that, it is not a choice they made, it's how they are. acceding to pink news, "Yes, we have a choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else"s idea of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with." and for me, I was born this way, God chose this path for me to take. according to CARM "HomoSEXuality is a behavior, an action. It is not the same thing as a genetic condition, such as skin color, height, or gender. Homosexual intercourse (is there homosexuality without it?) is a behavior and is, therefore, something people choose to do. Actions are what people c

Title: Homosexuality is natural. Content: My opponent has not at all supplied factual evidence that homosexuality is biological or of genetics. If homosexuality IS genetic, and the offspring of a carrier to the DNA marker carrying the gay gene is born gay, or homozygous gay, (no pun intended,) then the mother and the father would have to be at least heterozygous gay gene carriers. Homo meaning like, and hetero meaning passive. For instance, if gay is genetic, like hair color or something, than every gay person would have to have a few gay ancestors that were homozygous gay. Surely you dont believe that you can ONLY be gay if your ancestrial lines were also gay? ? Also wouldnt homosexuality been eliminated or "bred" out for the lack of reproductive homozygous gay gene carriers? One could not take the position that Homosexuals commonly reproduce in heterosexual manners in order to "pass" the gay gene on, for that theory would be in direct contradiction with the very defintion of homosexuality. The factual evidence that proves homosexuality is in fact UN-natural is the very definition that defines NATURE. My opponent seems to take the platiform position that the basic fact that homosexuality occures makes it natural. We are not in disagreement to the fact that homosexuality occures, but the cause for these occurences. Again, the occurences of homosexuality in other societies and species does not disprove that it is UN-natural. As I said before, two squirrels of the same gender having sex is just as un-natural as two humans having sex. The behavior patterns of animals or "incubated" societies of humans do not define nature. By the way, if these societies were truly secluded, then how do you know so much about their sexual behavior? As the defintion of sex according to Merriam-Webster is: >The sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females. < This proves your assumption that sex is not based on reproduction is false. If one could be considered homosexual, yet not be "intimate," with the same gender, than my beer drinking buddies could argueably be gay. For it does require intimacy to be considered sexual in any sense, homo or hetero. Sexual behavior IS social, in every species! Social as the word is DEFINED means: `marked by or passed in pleasant companionship with one's friends or associates; `of, relating to; `the interaction of the individual and the group, or interaction of individuals; www. merriam-webster. com By the above defintion, sex IS social, in fact it requires it, or it would just be considered masterbation. As they say,"it takes two to tango! " (not necessarily just two. ) In closing, By the very DEFINITIONS of the word natural, in fact contradict the definitions of homosexuality. The BASIC FACT that homosexuality does not have "potential," or "necessity," proves that homosexualty is NOT of nature, and the "occurences" of homosexual behavior is the act of two of the same gender and species bieng sexual, is IN FACT, SEX out of its PRIMITIVE state, there fore, UN-NATURAL. Thank you,. .

Title: There's no such thing as being born GAY! Content: I will argue people are born gay. I look forward to viewing your points in the next round and debating with you. Thank you.

Title: Homosexuals are born gay, have no choice Content: See Debate: Homosexuality Sample argument: Homosexuals are born gay, have no choice Ted Olson. "The conservative case for gay marriage." Newsweek. January 12, 2010: "Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed."

Title: People are born gay Content: I can't take it when people say gays were born gay. As con I will be arguing that people aren't born gay but become gay over time. As pro you must argue that people are indeed born gay. You may choose what you would like to do for each round. Free country!!

Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: I'm going to defend the following point: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology. I challenge anyone who can prove me wrong.

Title: Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice Content: Humans cannot be born gay it is a choice. Your brain is naturally influenced to lust after your opposite gender. If being born gay was true it would have to consider being a mental disorder.

Title: Gay Marriage Content: I. Homosexuality is NOT a choiceIn this rebuttal, my opponent says that things I previously referenced (gender, hair color, eye color, etc.) are determined by genetics and God. He also claims that being gay can't possibly be genetic, as it takes a man and a woman to have a child biologically. However, this is simply wrong. How so? Take a look at this excerpt. "That's at least according to a new and groundbreaking study recently published in the journal Psychological Medicine, which details how a study of more than 800 gay participants shared notable patterns in two regions of the human genome - one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8."While many previous studies have looked into potential genetic drivers of homosexuality, these studies often boasted a significantly smaller sample size or lacked common controls. This is the first study of its kind to boast such a robust sample size and also be published in a scientific peer-reviewed paper." [1]In other words, it is, in fact, genetic.Also, the study my opponent quoted suggests that being gay is genetic. In fact, here's what one of the scientists who worked on the study said, regarding the results.“'This study knocks another nail into the coffin of the "chosen lifestyle" theory of homosexuality,' says Simon LeVay, the neuroscientist and writer who, in 1991, claimed to have found that a specific brain region, within the hypothalamus, is smaller in gay men. 'Yes, we have a choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else’s idea of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with.' “'Much hard work now lies ahead to identify the specific genes involved and how they work, as well as to find equivalent genes in women,' he adds." [2]You know what the funny part is? My opponent actually quoted this part in his rebuttal. My opponent then goes on to say that a homosexual must ask themself if the abuse is worth being gay. To me, this makes no sense. Why should a gay person have to question if being open about their sexuality is worth the bullying? I'll create a scenario in which it involves a straight person. Say that you're a man. You're in love with a woman. Should you be bullied for the gender you love? No. So why should it be different for gay people? Whether it's a choice or not, who you love is your business. No one should be allowed to try to convert you or change your mind. Why? Because it's not their life. II. Equality/Separation of Church and StateFirstly, my opponent says that if the Founding Fathers wanted homosexuals to be equal to heterosexuals, they would've made it legal throughout the U.S for gay people to marry. However, wouldn't the Founding Fathers also make slavery illegal if they truly wanted everyone to be equal? What about women being able to vote? They certainly would've made that legal to. And what about women being able to join the military in combat, rather than just for cooking and nursing purposes? Homosexuals, women, and black people have all been discriminated against in the past, which shows inequality. However, should we always stick with our old ways or strive to make the United States equal for all?My opponent drops my arguments on economic benefits and adoption, so keep that in mind when voting for either side.Closing StatementMy stance on gay marriage still stands, as I believe that it can aid everyone, whether it means through equality, economic growth, or adoption increase. The treatment LGBT people of the past is something we can make up for, just like we did with other similar civil rights issues. While discrimination may never go away, we can do our best to help oppressed people have equal rights to others in America, or eventually the world. To end, I present a quote from Mackelmore in the song "Same Love".And a certificate on paper isn't gonna solve it allBut it's a damn good place to startNo law is gonna change usWe have to change usWhatever God you believe inWe come from the same oneStrip away the fearUnderneath it's all the same loveAbout time that we raised up... [3]Thank you for the quality debate. Best of luck to you. So long and goodnight! Citations[1]http://www.natureworldnews.com...[2]https://www.newscientist.com...[3]http://www.azlyrics.com...

Title: Sexuality is a choice Content: Firstly, my opponents mentions the Human Genome Project and claims there has been no findings of a gay gene. However, recent reports say otherwise: . http://www.medicaldaily.com... Male homosexuality may actually be genetic while female homosexuality is more questionable at this point. My opponent also mentions that many people may turn to homosexuality as a result of child abuse. This is also inaccurate as statistics in the US about child abuse are estimated at 16% for male sexual abuse and 27% for female sexual abuse. Only about 1.51% of the US population identifies as homosexual. . http://www.pandys.org... More common consequences of child abuse and neglect include shaken baby syndrome(only if the child in question is a young baby obviously), impaired brain development, depression, anti-social behaviour, alcohol/drug abuse, abusive behaviour themselves, and other. . http://www.childwelfare.gov... My opponent mentions a university study about a homosexual man turning straight after therapy. He has failed to provide sources therefore we know nothing about the man. Was he displaying homosexual traits in his behaviour from a young age? Was his mother pressuring him to be homosexual from a young age? These all of course bring up another point worth mentioning. Many children from a young age show traits that are perceived as being "homosexual". Just very recently there was a five year old boy in Germany being teased for wearing dresses by his own free will. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Unless this is just a simple case of a child ignoring gender roles(which most children wouldn't really even grasp the social concepts surrounding these in the first place) it's likely he is either homosexual or transsexual. If a child was doing such things after puberty then there could be a case perhaps that homosexuality is a choice, but this boy is pre-pubescent from what I understand. As for people "switching" their orientation maybe they were never truly homosexual in the first place and maybe bisexual? However, both my opponent and I agreed that bisexuality will not be discussed in this debate. My opponent then goes on to mention how the numbers of people claiming to be born homosexual has risen over the years. One factor contributing to this could be the fact that now with homosexuality becoming more and more accepted more people are willing to be open about these kinds of things. As we all know society evolves and so do the values represented in society. Next my opponent mentions the religious perspective. It is pretty much universally accepted among all religions that God is loving. Now one may be wondering that if God is loving why would he make gay people and then condemn them? There can be a pretty simple answer to this; just like how unmarried straight people are expected to control their urges the same could be said for homosexuals as well. Maybe it's just another test from God? Lastly, my opponent mentions pop culture and it's perceived affect on gay culture. One notable example used is Lady Gaga. While she does have many songs with pro-gay messages she does represent the overall general message of just being yourself. THis is an overall positive message and shouldn't be blamed for people "becoming gay". If they did so then they wouldn't be "being themselves" as Lady Gaga says now would they? As for suicides and bullying, if one chose to be gay wouldn't they just stop being gay so the bullying would stop? Yet they don't. Why? Is it because they can't help who they're sexually attracted to? I certainly think it could be a major factor. I now hand the reins over to my opponent. Good luck in round 2!

Title: Born gay part 2 Content: I do not think being gay is as simple as a choice, but I believe that when you're a child you are still trying to form connections and gather facts about the world. During this time you form your basic fundamental traits, although some genes do make some traits prominent than others, but you form what you think is socially acceptable, and you aren't even close to figuring things out about sexuality. I believe that during this time when you are so open to what you're parents tell you and what facts you are gathering, later in life you may develop certain personality traits that may make you homosexual, due to the basic fundamental connections you have formed as a child.

Title: It is a choice to be gay or straight. Content: "You admitted that sexual preference was only 40% based on genes and that how you are raised accounts for the other 60%. However, this argument can go in my way. Just because you are raised in a certain way doesn't mean that you believe a certain thing. You can be raised by straight parents and decide that you are gay without having a gene. Take my friend's sister for example, I know she was straight for a while as when my friend and I were younger, she would always talk about how great her boyfriend was and she went through two or three boyfriends. However, she then decided that she was going to be gay. Your sources help with your gene based side but people do have the choice. You also mentioned only men, and not once did you mention women" My opponent is appealing to a personal experience instead of using a compelling argument: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... My opponent has not offered enough evidence to prove his claim. Until he does, his BOP is not yet fulfilled and we have literally no reason to vote for him.

Title: Sexuality is not a choice Content: Hello, I would like to join this Debate with you. Please note before we proceed, I would like to bring to your attention that I do not have any prejudices against sexuality, and I believe each human has their own preferences and settings. However I believe that Sexuality is a choice, and that is what I would like to debate with you. I would also like to state that even if you do not have a counter-argument, I would prefer to see a round of "I have no counter argument" as opposed to a forfeited round. Debate : I Believe that Sexuality is a Choice. You provided an example regarding apples and bananas - I would like to use this in my Example. Very accurately, you pointed out that one person who is actually gay, may have picked apple while another straight person also picked apple. This very argument is proof that regardless of tastes or backgrounds, people prefer different things, and will do them. Sexuality I have a feeling you believe is something that a person has when they are born (Please correct if this assumption is wrong, I can modify to cover this) - I cry false to this. I believe that this develops due to a persons own tastes, and is affected by their own likes. (Unproven, no one has monitored a persons interests as they grow) - This goes around things such as if the person has preferences to Tall people, muscles, brains, hair color, beliefs, etc. Now, those decisions are all subconscious, i.e. it is happening in the background without the person knowing this directly. However to act upon those decisions, THAT is a choice. I am not stating this as in they have chosen to like a certain person, but to physically react to their urges - that is the choice. I am not saying the above statement ignorantly, as I have myself had to make this choice (I am straight, so there was not additional pressure of peer judgement). However until the point that I was confident enough in myself, I never acted on those urges - It doesn't mean that my sexuality was non-existent, just I Chose not to action. Thank you for this Debate, and I hope we both grow and learn from our discussion. Thank you.

Title: There's no such thing as being born GAY! Content: People claim they are born gay I think it's absolute BS! If that's the case I can be a pedophile and be sexually attracted to children and use the same cop-out that I was born this way and have a genetic disposition to be attracted to minors!

Title: Homosexuality is a Choice. Content: It is true what my opponent says about people saying that they're gay for attention, but that does not mean that they actually are, and were not able to choose to have an attraction to people of the same gender. " My opponent has agreed here that people turn gay for attention, this therefore means that he also believes that people do choose to be homosexual, going against what he's supposed to be debating. 2) "Homosexuality is not a germ at all, in fact is it genetic" I am quite aware of this, but I could not think of the word, that I can now, so I stated "So to speak" after the words. I am well aware that it is genetic, and not a germ. 3) "While my opponent has his example of Ricky Martin, my point in this debate is that the state of being homosexual, meaning the physical attraction and not the lifestyle, or love life, is what I'm arguing for" That is exactly why I brought it up. Ricky Martin is a living example of having the choice to be straight. He chose to be straight for so long, and therefore this living proof should get PRO the win. 4) "People can not make a choice to be homosexual or not. It is a biological occurrence and is not a choice that people can make. " This is not true at all. Answer me this con. Why is it that we have so many people that choose to be homosexual, when they aren't really? We can all choose what we can be, not just because you are homo means you have to be that way. You may deny it, and go with the flow, as happens so long. And I quote Ann Landers and a website (last one shown in my sources list) Ann Landers said it, and millions of people believe it. The problem is, the data's not there to support it. There are three ways to test for inborn traits: twin studies, brain dissections, and gene "linkage" studies. (6) Twin studies show that something other than genetics must account for homosexuality, because nearly half of the identical twin studied didn't have the same sexual preference. If homosexuality were inherited, identical twins should either be both straight or both gay. Besides, none of the twin studies have been replicated, and other twin studies have produced completely different results. (7) Dr. Simon LeVay's famous study on the brains of dead subjects yielded questionable results regarding its accuracy. He wasn't sure of the sexual orientation of the people in the study, and Dr. LeVay even admits he doesn't know if the changes in the brain structures were the cause *of* homosexuality, or caused *by* homosexuality. (8) Finally, an early study attempting to show a link between homosexuality and the X- chromosome has yet to be replicated, and a second study actually contradicted the findings of the first. (9) Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be genetically related, *inborn* does not necessarily mean *normal*. Some children are born with cystic fibrosis, but that doesn't make it a normal condition. This should prove that the PRO should win this debat ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ATTACKS. My opponent did not defend his case, therefore please cross-supply my attacks to his case in the first round. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . http://www.mentalhelp.net... . http://www.suite101.com... . http://www.religioustolerance.org... . http://lesbianlife.about.com... . http://www.dosomething.org... . http://www.leaderu.com...;

Title: Nurture versus Nature (BOP is equally shared) Content: Sexuality is not gender. You are being stupid with that rebuttal., I know you are born with a gender but I think your sexuality is not inherited, I think you gain it as you grow, so I neither hold the view of it being born with you nor the religious view of it being a choice. I think it is your childhood experiences of male and female humans that shapes your sexuality, if you find females to be more appealing, you will be attracted to females, if you grow up with very appealing males and barely see attractive females I am pretty sure you'd grow to be gay. Additionally, as I said in the last round, if you grew up amongst wolves, you'd be sexually attracted to wolves, humans would seem like an alien species to you since you consider yourself to have the sexuality of a wolf due to your environment (nurture versus nature).Sexuality: a person’s sexual orientation or preference.[1]Your IQ argument is ridiculous. DO you think that children in the impoverished regions of this Earth have a high IQ? Of course not. All poor starving children will grow to be relatively unintelligent adults do you wish to know the reason why? If your brain is starved of nutrients as it grows, it will not turn out to have a high IQ. Additionally, exposure to omega 3,6 and 9 (all present in fish) largely affect IQ. This is ironically why even in poor regions of India, because so much of India eats fish in its curries, as do the Japanese, these countries generally produce individuals with jobs requiring high IQ (such as doctors, engineers and computer technicians). Environment is far more influential than genetics on IQ. The reasoning behind adopted babies having different IQ to each other is also relatively simple to explain. Two children brought up in the same household would still have had to have different in childhood. If one child befriended a smart child at school (smart for reasons of their upbringing) they would naturally compete to become smart, if the other grew up befriending less intelligent friends they would possibly dumb down to fit in. This is a common psychological trick of conformity. You will almost always adapt your IQ to fit that of your friends in the area in which you grew up. It isn't about genetics, it's about the urge to relate to them. If you grow up befriending the group of kids who are raised by rich 'upper class' parents then you will constantly debate as children and understand the concepts of economic success and why grades matter, thus causing you to have an in-built urge to study. As for the other sibling, they probably had a natural urge to befriend other types of people (yes this would be genetic) but apart form the natural tendency to befriend a type of people, they would have then adapted their IQ to that group of friends, often siblings don't like to befriend the same types of friends for the simple reason of competitiveness and rivalry. So if the older sibling befriended nerds, the younger child would hate to for simple rivalry. As for why the full siblings had similar IQ this is because they most likely had the natural urge to befriend the same type of people, but in the end that is not true for all siblings, not all biological siblings have same IQ, neither do all adoptive ones have differing IQ there are too many variables to draw conclusions from this.The tendency to alcoholism is also simple to explain, genes do not affect alcoholism. If they did, why is there a lot of straight-edge children of alcoholics? Because despite inheriting genes from an alcoholic father, they were environmentally affected to despise alcohol.Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Title: people are born gay Content: Let me ask a clarifying question. By "predisposition" do you mean that they have a certain likelihood to be gay, or do you mean it's more or less CERTAIN that they'll be gay? To make it more concrete, say a child is born. Would it make sense to you to say that the child might end up either straight or gay, but the odds are 70% towards gay? (weak version) Or do you mean it more like the child is pretty much 100% going to go straight or gay, and which one is already determined? (strong version) If you take the weak version position, you might want to reset the debate. I don't intend to dispute that. If you take the strong version position, then it'll be a pleasure to debate you.

Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: Please Note: I'm NOT attempting to offend anyone, nor am I against those who are other than heterosexual. I wish the best of luck to me and my opponent. Sexuality in my honest opinion isn't wired into one's brain at a very young age, nor do I believe one is automatically heterosexual when born. I believe it was taught someway, somehow weather through society or media. I seen people go from straight to gay vice versa, I've heard many say biologically it's naturally weird into one's brain, but honestly I find that false due to the fact a child doesn't yet have the knowledge on the meaning of sexuality. When children view television, magazines, movies, cartoons, etc. It's influencing children in some kind of way.

Title: People can be born Homosexual. Content: My opponent claims: "Its imposable to be born as anything." This is in fact false. You are born female or male. Now the reason I say people can be born to be homosexual is because their is a disorder called hermaphrodite. A Hermaphrodite can be defined as: "an individual in which reproductive organs of both sexes are present. Compare pseudohermaphrodite." or "combining two opposite qualities. " *a person having both male and female sexual characteristics and genital tissues When people with this disorder are born, they can be sexually confused. They are born with man and women traits, resulting in the fact they may be attracted to their own sex. So, if they are born male and female, they would be attracted to a gender, causing them to be homosexual since they are women/man. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice. Content: sexual orientation is not limited to the attraction felt to a specific gender, granted these forces are never stagnant and cant be measured however they can be scoped on to a scale of sorts by intensity and direction. sexual orientation can point to other spectrum like age. it is most common for people to have an attraction to adults aged 20 - 40 just as it is common to be attracted to the opposite gender. however it isn't common but accepted that there are a few people who's orientation point higher or lower than the average, some people are attracted to younger people gender regardless from the ages of 6 - 13 and some people like older people 50 - 70. sexual orientation can point at different levels of different spectra such as gender, age, inter species, intellect, masculinity, femininity and desire. these cannot be decided upon, they occur based on subconscious decisions by past experiences and not conscious decision making, or genetic inheritance.

Title: Is being gay wrong Content: ***Disclaimer: As a straight male, I support gay marriage and those who are homosexual. That being said, As a straight male, my preference is towards women. This would then infer that I think being homosexual, for me, is wrong. I will show these reason why I believe it is wrong for me. (Other than, I do like girls, I do not like boys)My opponent states "We are born this way."Science has only suggested that homoesexuality may start in the womb. "homosexuality might not lie in DNA itself. Instead, as an embryo develops, sex-related genes are turned on and off in response to fluctuating levels of hormones in the womb, produced by both mother and child. This benefits the unborn child, however if these epigenetic changes persist once the child is born, and has children of its own, some of these offspring may be homosexual."[1]"It's not a choice"Are you speaking solely for yourself, or do you believe no gay person has made a concious choice to be gay?I believe there are some people, based partially on their genetics, environment, and upbringing have no choice other than to be homosexual. But I also believe there are others who, later in life, have gone against there heterosexual beliefs and have "turned gay" by choice.My argument to why homosexuality is wrong(aside from my personal preference) is based on the human anatomy.Homosexuality, among men, usually involves anal sex. This goes against the human anatomy and has proven hazardous to the health of the participants. The points made (in the article below are summzarized as follow) [2]The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina hasThe anus was designed to hold in fecesThe anus is full of bacteriaThere are few health risks for women who engage in homosexual acts. But, both the male and female reproductive organs are going unused (which does happens in heterosexual relationships) meaning you are wasting a significant portion of your anatomy. One of our instincts, as humans, is sex. "The instinct to have sex is one of the most potent we possess. It’s vital if we are to produce the next generation." [3]Like other animals we crave the ability to reproduce. Our intellgience has made selection of mates increasingly difficult and can hinder our instinct, but the craving still remains.Sex in its natural state is between a man and a woman.[1]http://scitechdaily.com...;[2] http://www.webmd.com...;[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Title: being gay has to do with genes Content: "Nobody has ever found a "gay gene". The very idea that a single gene could control sexual orientation is ridiculous." scientific studies show that being gay has to do with genetics. But im not saying people cant choose it either. scientists believe the sexual orientation has to do with genetics, hormonal and social factors. Have you ever heard of the twin studies? Being gay has to do with genetics with out a doubt but its not the only factor. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: First I would like to point out that Con's position is not based on evidence or reason but on a gut feeling he has or a misinterpretation of anecdotal experiences he's had. Sexual orientation deals with preference and attraction which don't bend at will but are conditioned through a combination of genetics and environment. As a sort of tongue and cheek demonstration that sexual orientation doesn't change at our whim I would ask our audience to force themselves to find this thing attractive(of course applying to people that don't find it attractive) [IMG]. http://www.funnypica.com...[/IMG] . http://www.funnypica.com... In a study it was found that 52% of cases in which an identical twin was homosexual, the other was also a homosexual. You may say, yes but that's because they're raised in the same environment, but the same study showed that only 22% of cases in which a fraternal twin was homosexual the other was homosexual. This is clear evidence that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. . http://www.nytimes.com... Studies have shown that the long arm of x chromosome Xq28 increases the odds that a male will be homosexual. . http://www.nature.com...

Title: Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice Content: My opponent has conceded that genes do play a role in the outcome of homosexuality with " Genes can increase the likelihood of someone being gay" thus if something outside of our free will which determines choice affects us and our sexual orientation, then how can my opponent argue it is a choice. My opponent has admitted that our free will can be affected by our genes this obviously leads to a conclusion that the desire for homosexual relations is not a purely based on choice. The genetic predisposition to addiction or the 'addiction gene' works the same way as the gay gene If a child has the addiction gene they are 8 times more likely to develop an addiction(1). Just like the gay gene if you have it you are much more likely to be gay. In relation to my opponents alcohol point if one never comes into contact with alcohol even with the addiction gene one can not become an alcoholic this is true(1) but it only hinders my opponents argument. As just like the addiction gene if a male with the gay gene never comes into contact with another male how can he be gay? The homosexuality still exists just as the addiction there is yet though no desire to act it out as one does not know what it is they desire. However no such hypothetical situation exists and unlike those with the addiction gene whom may never taste alcohol thus never 'trigger' the addiction males will always come into contact with other males thus 'triggering' the homosexual response from the gay gene. Again reaffirming the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. On my opponents last point this is known as the 'Anecdotal fallacy' and should be dismissed as evidence. Also you say your parents raised you to be straight, I have to ask where is your choice in that? I feel it obvious that I have the stronger case and have used much more credible arguments and evidence to support my claims unlike my opponent who used only one reference as evidence and presented no real arguments to refute the choice except for his biblical verse which was easily dismissed. I however used factual evidence and several different sound arguments which all lead to the one conclusion homosexuality is not a choice. Thank you reference: 1. http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org...

Title: Homophobes' views on gays are CORRECT. Gay supporters are WRONG and misguided Content: Even though the topic is not very clearly stated, it can be boiled down to one statement: Homosexuality is a choice, in which my opponent is pro and I am con. In this argument I will first address the arguments made by con, after which I will give my own arguments. However, I will acknowledge that it is a very complex topic. There are undeniably environmental factors that have an impact too. However, genetics are also very relevant, and people most certainly don't choose to be gay. Pro starts of with some polls of what Americans think. Those can be entirely ignored, because opinions (which the polls measure) are completely irrelevant where facts are concerned. Even if a poll showed that 100?% of people thought the earth was flat, it would still be round. Similarly, even if 100% of people thought that being gay is a choice, that would simply mean that all people are wrong. After this pro mentions a report by Ugandan 'scientists', who made a report for the government. The government is notoriously anti-gay which causes an enormous bias, and the paper is not peer reviewed. We can therefore ignore this too. A random rapper is an even worse source, so can be ignored too. The only valid argument that Pro made was the referencing of the study by Neal E. Whitehead. However, this is by no means definitive prove. It's just one paper. I could easily give you opposing papers that gives an opposing argument: Look for instance at the paper by Sanders, A R et al, called "Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation" (published in Psychological medicine, May 2015, Vol.45(7), pp.1379-88 [Peer Reviewed Journal]), which states that "Our study results provide further evidence for early (prenatal) biological influences on variation in male sexual orientation.". (Full disclosure, it also mentions that environmental factors have an influence). Another clear indication that homosexuality is natural and something you're born with is the behaviour of rams: Up to 1 in every 10 rams is homosexual. I think that it is extremely unlikely that the rams decided to become gay, and a natural explanation makes most sense. There are also some other indications that this is the case, such as the fact that there were observable differences in the homosexual ram's brains: https://www.newscientist.com... Finally, a logical argument: Being gay is not easy. There are gay people even in countries where it's punishable by death. There is no logical reason for anybody to become gay voluntarily. This leaves two options open: Somebody forced them to be gay (highly unlikely) or they were born gay (possibly in combination with some environmental factors). With that I have countered all of Pro's arguments and given my own. I look forward to Pro's response.

Title: Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice Content: This is going to be easy lol I shall first refute my opponent's arguments many there may be. My opponent claims we naturally lust the other sex, what about asexual people whom have no sexual desires at all and in 2004 the British population was 1% asexual (1). So clearly we don't naturally lust for the other sex. My opponent then went on to say " If being born gay was true it would have to consider being a mental disorder", like this is some kind of argument. Whilst I certainly do not agree with the statement my opponent has taken a step back here as he concedes that one may infact be born gay with a mental disorder but nonetheless still born gay, thus this argument puts my opponent in a worse position than he started in. To start my argument I would ask my opponent the common question in the gay debate, when did you choose to be straight? Now on to the science there is something the scientific community has recognised lately and it is called the 'gay gene' Research conducted by the NorthShore Research Institute among many other studies in the US found clear links between male sexual orientation and two specific regions of the human genome, with lead scientist Alan Sanders declaring that the work "erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice"(2). This was also the largest ever study conducted on the matter. Homosexuality is well known but we also know the behaviour is extremely common across the animal kingdom, from insects to mammals, as of 1999, about 500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been documented engaging in same-sex behaviors. According to the organizers of the 2006 Against Nature? exhibit, it has been observed in 1,500 species; thus proving that homosexuality is indeed just a fact of nature and thus natural (3). Ladies and gentlemen brothers and sisters these are my opening arguments, not many I know but it is still more than enough prove that homosexuality is not a choice. I would love to see what my opponent is gong to argue now I doubt anything good or anything at all. reference: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://www.independent.co.uk... (3) http://www.bbc.com...

Title: Jesus Christ loves gays equally as much as straights. Content: Hello there my friend. This is my first debate in a year, so I'm excited to debate this. First off, I would like to state I'm an atheist, so I have a lack of belief in god or gods. Second: Yes sexual orientation is static, your gender (whether your gay or straight or bi) is what your born with. Also, Jesus Christ, whether or not he existed, didn't ever, once, say anything about homosexuality in the bible. However isn't Jesus not only the Son of God, but God himself? I end my opening statements: Good luck!

Title: Gay Adoption Content: Thank you for responding! I know that school must be tough. I hope you did well on your test. Before I go on with refutations, I would like to add another case.Case 5: People Can Choose To Be GayIn basic Biology, we learn that there are certain conditions that determine certain characteristics. These may be physical, environmental, and spiritual. Let me give you an example. A physical condition causes you to release adrenaline in times of trouble. An environmental conditional could be growing up in a bad neighborhood causing you to be on guard constantly. A spiritual condition could be not giving your virginity up for your religion. Doctor Ben Carson has been labeled as infamous for saying being gay is a choice. However, he may not be so far off. (1) In the article, Carson asserts that many men go into prison heterosexual; but come out gay. How could this be? Their environmental conditions favored them to be gay; since there were no females in prison. A number of studies analyzed twins in different countries. A quote from the article:"Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. . . . “Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. “‘Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,’ Dr. [Neil] Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. ‘If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.’ “Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. ‘No-one is born gay,’ he notes. ‘The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.’” (2) You may ask yourself:"How does this tie into gay adoption?"If an individual wanted a child so badly, if said individuals took the necessary steps, they could become heterosexual. Therefore, they must either not want a child that badly or would rather have a gay lover. This is where a common phrase comes into place."You can't have your cake and eat it too."Refutations:In Response To Case 1:This is the authors opinion. If anything, it hurts your case. It doesn't say that evidence against gay parenting suffers significant methodological limitations. It says that advocate evidence for gay adoptions suffers such limitations.In Response To Case 2:If anything, you did nothing but strengthen my case. If living with a LGBT family as a child for more than four years messes the children up that much, how much would the children be messed up if they were raised there for a lifetime. If anything, that does nothing but strengthen Mark's study.In Response To Case 3:I did provide a source. Both of the arguments I wrote should be in source number four in the previous argument.That doesn't change the relevancy of said study. The entire human psych didn't morph into a totally new thing in a decade. Unless you can actually provide me with evidence that the study is flawed, don't try to challenge it. Then you go on to accept the study saying that kids are indeed more likely to try homosexual behavior in the future. You then ask; "What's wrong by that?" before acknowledging that gay people have higher depression and suicide rates. Another study confirms that homosexuals have an increased risk for mental disorders and aggression. (3)" Psychological Aggression is a common and serious problem in LGB relationships. • We reviewed psychological aggression among LGB individuals. • We identified several definitional and methodological concerns. • Several recommendations are offered to advance this area of research." " 19% to 29% of gay and lesbian students and 18% to 28% of bisexual students experienced dating violence in the prior year. 14% to 31% of gay and lesbian students and 17% to 32% of bisexual students had been forced to have sexual intercourse at some point in their lives." (4)As you can see, homosexuality poses a problem for impressionabl, young children and teens. Why make them go through so much stress for a choice they made? In articles, people always say"Be supportive!"However, if there was no problems with being gay, why do homosexuals feel as if there is? People don't need support for being heterosexual; white, black, boy, girl, ETC. So why is it that we just have to be so tolerant if said act is wrong. Pro asks later in the argument if depression statistics are because of stigma. He admits right there that my statistics aare correct. I assert that it isn't hte case. However, if we assume that it's because of stigma, that's one more reason wy kids becoming homosexual isn't a good thng.It still applies to gay adoption. In fact, in advocates heterosexuality. It refers to:"Mothers an fathers."Refutations of Case 4:Bro... This was my source for number six...http://familyinamerica.org...This was its citation:(Charles Q. Lau, “The Stability of Same-Sex Cohabitation, Different-Sex Cohabitation, and Marriage,” Journal of Marriage and Family 74 [October 2012]: 973-988.)The date doesn't change its reliability. It was analyzed over a long period of time; thus showing a trend. Refutation to Pro's Argument: Many of the studies that try to show that there is a benefit or show that there's no difference is skewed in many ways. I brief summation of one of my sources:"However, a number of researchers have pointed out significant methodological problems with the research that would cast doubt on the conclusiveness of the “no difference” findings. Even some researchers supportive of same-sex parenting have acknowledged the significant methodological limitations in the research to date"From Round 2. (5) In Conslusion:Being homosexual is a choice that can be changed. If homosexuals want to get children, they should be in a heterosexual relationship for the wellbeing of the children.There are many downsides to being a homosexual. Children of homosexuals are likely to become homosexual; thus experiencing these problems.The marriages and relationships of homosexuals are unstableDomo! Sayonara!Anime OP:Corpse Party OP: Guilty Crown OP: 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com...;4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-risk behaviors among students in grades 9-12—Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, selected sites, United States, 2001-2009.MMWR. 2011.5. http://tinyurl.com...

Title: homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with Content: No, there's no gay gene. There's no "male" gene either. Most complex traits are governed by multiple genes, the womb, and their epigenetic interaction. Talking about a gay gene is a red herring. What we do know is that there is a strong heritability component: one way of proving this is by comparing the concordance rates of identical twins with those of fraternal twins. Heritable conditions occur more frequently in identical twins. Being gay occurs more frequently in identical twins. But of course it's not all genetic. It's just that research shows no consistent link between any childhood factor and becoming gay. (There is some research linking sexual trauma to being gay, which is an inconsistent finding, however many of those subjects identified as gay before the trauma occurred). And since we do find correlation to prenatal conditions, the evidence is that it is an accident of birth. And given the overwhelming failure of conversion therapy to achieve its ends (and the experience of most gay people that they don't change even when they try), we are left to the conclusion that as far as we can tell it's both innate and immutable. I can't speak for the very few "success" stories of conversion therapy; maybe a very very few people have some interceding quality that lets them change, but the simpler explanation is that they were at least somewhat bisexual to begin with (since not all bisexuals favor both genders equally).

Title: Homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. Content: First, I will establish that sexual orientation is not hereditary and is subject to a large number of psychological variables. This is primarily to make the point that homosexuality is not "natural" in the sense that it is unavoidable or part of human instinct. I point three facts that seem to contradict modern conception of attractiveness:1. Apes tend to be attracted to older females due to their having more experience raising young and surviving. In modern society we observe th opposite.2. People used to find overweight or heavier females attractive, the logic being that such women were better fed and had a larger chance of surviving. This is still prevalent in some societies.3. In Elizabethian England pale skin (possibly signalling health because a clear and pale face probably didn’t have smallpox) and a large forehead was considered attractive (the hair was plucked to make the forehead appear bigger).Second, there is a large body of evidence that supports an "exotic-becomes-erotic" theory (which states that whatever sex is seen as "exotic" or different later becomes erotic, thus gender-nonconformity during childhood causes sexual attraction to the same-sex later in life). In a 1987 study, 75% of gender-nonconforming boys became bisexual or homosexual in later years compared with only 4% of gender-conforming boys. Homosexuals overwhelmingly report sex-atypical activities and had opposite-sex friends growing up. [1. http://dbem.ws...]Peer rejection, a distant or belittling father and an emotionally smothering or needy mother (for boys), low self-esteem, and sexual abuse are major causes of homosexuality. Often a child will be unable to connect to others of the same sex, resulting in unstable and unhealthy sexual relationships. It is well established that gays have much higher rates of suicide or mental illness than straights; to dispute this my opponent will need to prove that these are directly caused by social stigmas or discrimination."Like most heterosexuals, most gay people are fully functioning members of society. A good parent is responsible, competent, loving, trustworthy, etc. None of these qualities are exclusive to heterosexuals. There seem to be no qualifications of a good parent that a gay person can not possess."I sincerely hope you aren't playing semantics with me. Technically they can, but I am saying that this is generally not the case. If you are saying that it is "possible" that gays can raise well adjusted children, I point out that it is also possible that beating kids is a good method for discipline (seeing as there must be at least a few success stories in the world). Wasn't this mentioned in the comments? Furthermore, whether or not children have mother and a father is not irrelevant. "Rough-and tumble" play with their fathers influences a child's social development and teaches them how to be physical without being inappropriate or hurting people. [2. http://www.psychologytoday.com...] A study in the U.S. and New Zealand found that the presence of the natural father was the most significant factor in reducing rates of early sexual activity and rates of teenage pregnancy in girls. [3. Bruce J. Ellis, Child Development May/June 2003, 74:3, pp. 801–21] Children who are have good relationships with their mothers have higher self-esteem, and from better social connections with others. In a another study, 77 18-month old-children were exposed to stimuli (such as a robot clown or a puppet show). Cortisol levels for the (frightened) children varied depending on their bonds with their mothers. Children who had secure attachments showed no increase while children with insecure attachments showed an increase. [4. http://www.thelizlibrary.org...]Fathers and mothers are not interchangable. Children of same-sex couples are forced to seek male or female role-models elsewhere. The reason why they show little difference in "social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths" is because the traditional model of the family is being destroyed. Children today are not raised by their parents; they are raised at school or other environments away from their families. Mothers or fathers are not the biggest influence in the children's lives; rather, they hardly seem to have one at all. Parents, who are supposed to be role models and form close connections with their kids only spend a fraction of the time they used to with them, with unfortunate results. The rate of increase of depression among children is now 23%. [5.http://www.upliftprogram.com...] I wish I could elaborate on this right now, but I have only fifteen minutes left. "There have been numerous studies indicating that children raised by 2 parents have more success and less emotional or behavioral problems than their single-parent counterparts."Of course having a two-parent family is better than one. The economic benefits alone help children. Irrelevant."I expect my opponent to make the argument that kids with gay parents might get teased more."Are you serious? Please give me a little more credit than that."On that note, much like adopted parents, gay parents typically have to go out of their way to have kids (i.e. in vitro fertilization). Meanwhile 50% of heterosexual babies are unplanned. Psychologist Abbie Clark explains, "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement" [4]."My opponent here says that gays can make better parents by avoiding a flaw in straight relationships (that many pregnancies are accidental). This is ridiculous; simply because it is a problem does not mean it is inherent in that entire style of relationship, nor does it mean that such a flaw will never be fixed or that unplanned pregnancies will never be stopped. By this logic the argument about kids getting teased is perfectly legitimate."There are plenty of people raised by gay parents who have had great experiences and turned out very well adjusted. Zach Wahl's speech about family (he also has two lesbian moms) went viral on YouTube, and I encourage my opponent to look it up. He is a very successful and admirable young man. However, I mentioned that I don't want this to turn into a debate over anecdotal evidence. We need to consider not individual cases, but how much sexuality in general influences parenthood."Anecdotal evidence only shows the limits of what is or can be possible. Pro concedes this later on and I'm baffled as to why she brought it up in the first place."In a 2010 review of virtually EVERY study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents."Copy-pasted from source.I look forward to my opponent's reply.

Title: Obama Must Stop Promoting Homosexuality Content: "And you tell us that "born this way" is scientific fact, but have yet to cite this." I provided logical arguments for the claim that homosexuals have sexual attraction for the same sex. I argued that sexual attraction is not chosen by appealing to each of our individual experiences of our sexual attraction and the fact that we can't change our attraction through our will. This argument has not been contested by my opponent. I also provided the unanswered logical argument that homosexuals are sexually attracted to the same sex and not to the opposite sex by citing their own self-reports of their experiences. If homosexuals were attracted to the opposite sex, wouldn't they find no satisfaction in having sex with people they are not attracted to? How many people would abstain from sex with women if they were attracted to them? Even though I don't have to provide scientific evidence because my logical evidence is strong enough, I will provide some anyway. In the latest research gay brothers are more likely to share Xq28 genes than strait brothers. There is also a genetic region on Chromosome 8 what seems to predict being gay. Studies have found that being gay is 30-40% genetic while the rest is environmental such as the hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb (4,5). "Instead, you demand I provide evidence it isn't." Well you are claiming that gays can choose who they are attracted to. This is a claim and you must back it up. "Moreover, I informed you the American Psychological Association does not support "born this way" but you choose to ignore this." Please site is source. Is Anal Sex is Dangerous Honestly I takes this argument as seriously as the claims that masturbation will sterilize you. There are health risks for anal sex just like there are health risks for real sex, sky diving, running, or medications. However, if you are careful, you can reduce risks. Some steps that can be taken is use plenty of lubricants to avoid tissue tearing, don't do oral sex after anal sex, relax before anal sex like take a warm bath, stop if anal sex is painful, make sure the anus is clean before anal sex, see your doctor if anything usual starts happening, and be gentle when doing it (1). Anal Sex and Disease As mentioned before, the risk of disease is much more tolerable than never being in a fulfilling relationship with a partner you are sexually attracted to. This argument went unrefuted. Also unrefuted is the argument that safe sex can reduce disease. Heterosexual sex also has risk factors for STDs. 65 million Americans have an STD and 1 in 4 Americans will get an STD in their lifetime. 45 million Americans have genital herpes (2). In order to reduce your risk of AIDS whether your are gay or strait or reduce your risk of STDs in general you should follow some common sense tips. First, be monogamous. Having sex with a lot of people is going to increase your risk. Get tested and know your partner's status. Use condoms consistently and correctly (3). We don't have to have the high rates of STDs whether gay or not. Gay people do not have to give up sex with people they are attracted to. By the way, you don't have to give up running to avoid the potential health risks or running. You don't have to give up sex to avoid it's health risks. While my opponent certainly has a lot of interesting opinions, I would not consider him medically informed on anal sex and sexually transmitted diseases. One interesting point is that promoting gay marriage will also promote gay monogomy and will reduce the rate of STDs among gays, so why are people against gay marriage again if they constantly cite STDs? Whether conservatives like it or not gays will have sex, lets make this marital sex. Gay Marriages Work I have already cited statistics that gay marriages are almost half as likely to end in divorce with an annual 1.1% divorce rate compared to a 2% divorce rate for strait couples. All my opponent has done is provide an uncited reference to ten gay couples that have gotten divorced. That is a really bad sample. In Denmark gay divorce rates are significantly lower than strait couples. In the UK gay divorce after 30 months is less than 1% (6). In the UK, 2.5% of gay couples divorce after 4 years while it is 5.5% for strait couples (7). 1: http://www.webmd.com... 2: http://www.stdtestexpress.com... 3: http://aids.gov... 4: http://www.theaustralian.com.au...# 5: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... 6: http://en.wikipedia.org... 7: http://www.advocate.com...

Title: Extreme danger in legalizing same-sex marriage in society Content: I do not know of any gene which makes people gay or more likely to be gay. Identical twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than fraternal twins. Fraternal twins are more likely to share sexual orientation than are siblings. Siblings more likely than randomly distributed individuals. Further, the youngest male born seems to have a few extra percent chance of being gay, even if one adjusts for having older males in the family. These are all pretty strong evidence that there are developmental as well as genetic factors. Similar to being left handed or situs inversus, there doesn't seem to be a monogenetic trait which leads to homosexuality. Which is far from saying that homosexuality is not inborn. In fact, studies have shown that homosexuals attraction parts of their brain works like those of females, prior to the conscious thought. Further, I personally never decided to be straight. I just feel sexually attracted to women. I see no reason to conclude that sexual attraction isn't inborn. It's common to find brains wired up to be attracted to men, typically these brains belong to women but there's nothing exacting about human development. Gender identity, gender attraction, and even genital formation have shown a good amount of ability to do pretty much whatever. You only need it to work some of the time to propagate the species. Also, there's some speculation that homosexuals help their nieces and nephews enough to make the trade off worthwhile. In some areas having a rich uncle who never married could allow for genetically related individuals from the family to succeed. So homosexuality may not be evolutionarily helpful for the individual but rather helpful to the larger family and matriarch of the family. The theory seems tenuous, but does make a good amount of sense. However, all of that aside, what does it matter why a person is gay? If somebody were gay for the fun of it, that would still not warrant restricting their right to marriage. Why they are gay doesn't matter one jot. You have the right to enter into a legally binding contract with another person. If you want to marry the person you love, it is not the right of the state to restrict that. Slippery slope arguments are fallacies unless you can really show that there is something to fear. Humans are animals, so humans marry animals all the time. However, for the most part there's a real argument against marrying someone/something that doesn't have the ability to consent. A marriage is a contract between two people of sound mind and body who enter into an arrangement which is recognized by the state and conveys certain rights to the other person. Boys and horses don't really have the ability to enter into contracts because they aren't able to consent legally. As for polygamy, there's a real argument there. I don't see anything wrong with such a contract if everybody involved is fully aware of the situation. The main objection to polygamy is that it often is implemented as polygyny and involves teenage girls being divvied up by church elders. That obviously fails, but additional spouses isn't by default objectionable and would be up to debate. The line is drawn at consenting adults. If rights are offered to somebody they must be offered to everybody. As far as the state is concerned marriage is a contract and the state has no right to restrict who can enter into a contract and who cannot. Yes, I believe those claims are absurd and they are exactly what people were saying about interracial marriage 50 years ago. What's next? I'd assume a complete set of equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, and no special privileges for anybody. Your horse has no ability to agree to a marriage. This is perhaps the dumbest argument against gay marriage. Most of the arguments just come down to religion. If the only arguments against something are religious arguments, then that is simply saying that there are no good arguments for something.

Title: homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with Content: I can not find the citations for your source. Also, you admit some do change; which contradicts your argument that sexuality is fixed from the womb.You, again, provide no citations for your argument except for the statistics with gay conversion therapy.From source two of my previous arguments about the supposed "gay gene" and chemical exposure in the body."In 1993 Dean Hamer and colleagues at the National Institutes of Health, claimed to have discovered a gene for homosexuality. Their study, published in Science [17], used a sample of 40 “gay” brother pairs whose sexual orientation was said to be maternally inherited. Hamer and colleagues found that 83% of the pairs shared the same markers on a region of the X chromosome called Xq28. Interestingly, a follow-up study including lesbian sister pairs did not show the same occurrence of shared markers [18]. Though the original study was never replicated,Time magazine featured an article the following week with a bold cover entitled, “Born Gay: Scientists Discover a Genetic Link.” In 1999, in the largest study of its kind to date, George Rice, George Ebers and colleagues at the University of Western Ontario failed to reproduce a statistically significant linkage to the Xq28 marker in a sample of 52 gay brother pairs [19]. Another unpublished study led by Alan Sanders at the University of Chicago produced inconclusive results [20]. Further evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality has not been produced."You leave my studies untouched. Your word does not hold more validity than studies that show the links. If you don't want to acknowledge it, that's your problem.Anime OP:;

Title: born a way Content: Thank you for my first debate. Secondly, I'm assuming my opponent is giving arguments for sexuality as opposed to the general alternative. Sexuality is a choice because we start out with a clean slate. Are we born murders/lawyers? No. As we grow, there will always be influences around us ranging from parents to friends to associates. These are effects on our personality, that cannot be predetermined at the womb or birth. By ignoring influences such as these, we suggest our fate is predetermined but then, nothing would really change, we couldn't be saved, hope would be minute. Human nature would most likely win etc. "Choices can be made in the present, nature is background or recessive" the philosopher said to the biologist. I'd argue so.

Title: Being gay is not a choice. Content: Clarifications: Perfect. Con admits that he simply cannot win this debate if homosexuality is defined properly. In other words, Con must use a faulty definition in order to win this debate... because he can't support his case any other way. He says he'd agree with me if my proper definition is used, but that's only because I have proven him to be 100% wrong on this topic in general. You'll note that this debate only came into fruition because I disagreed with his position on the subject in another debate and challenged him on it; as such he chose a definition of homosexuality from Wikipedia (lol) that he thinks makes it impossible for Pro to win. I maintain that the definitions should be discussed - especially on this topic - since no mention was made in R1 that the definition HAD to be accepted, and it's understood in every debate that people have different ways of defining things. For instance, in a debate about free will, you'll see that Pro presents one definition of free will and then Con presents another [1]. This clarification is most certainly allowed and encouraged so long as it's done in the first round, and the instigator makes no rule against it (which you'll notice that Con did not). The only way my definition should not be used is if Con argues that my definition is incorrect. However, because my definition is the correct medical definition, then it should be upheld. Again, I'll let the audience decide what source they think is more valid - the medical community, or Wikipedia. Moving on, we'll discuss the word "homosexual" since that's what this debate is actually about - being gay. You'll note that Con never once defined gay or homosexual ~ just homosexuality. As such, my explanation of homosexual should stand. I have described it as being one that possesses the qualities of homosexuality. That includes gay genes, biological factors and all other sexual instincts, attractions or behavior towards another of the same sex or gender. Rebuttal: 2. Suicide Con says that my argument here completely rests on my definition; however, once again that is completely wrong. I have proven and even quoted doctor/scientists who explain that sexual identity is achieved in INFANCY which Con originally said was impossible before I proved him wrong. So, since I was right about that point and Con completely dropped that argument in the last round, then I am right in saying that an infant does not have the mental or physical capacity for suicide and my point stands. Also, Con says I dropped his argument "As the parents make the choice to allow for the child to exist, the child's being gay is still a choice." I didn't drop it -- I just proved how it was impossible, so I thought Con would understand that I already negated this absolutely ridiculous position. The resolution implies that BEING gay is a choice, NOT *raising a gay child* is a choice. So, even the parents choose to raise a gay child, the child does not have a choice and therefore this point actually supports my position rather than Con's. 3. Seclusion Con writes, "If one has never known anybody else in his or her entire life, then they would not even understand sexuality at all." I can't even begin to describe how non-sensical this argument is. First of all, if one lived in seclusion their entire life since birth, then it wouldn't be their choice but their parents (or some other entities) choice. Therefore this weak argument has already been negated. However, you'll notice that Con dropped every single one of my other points from the last round regarding this horrible contention. In R2 I pointed out why this premise made no sense. Con absolutely 100% dropped my arguments about the genetic and biological factors that go into determining one's sexuality. Of course this was after he said that there was no link, and I proved him wrong just as I have with every other point that he's made. Nevertheless, let me reiterate how asinine this argument really is. Not to mention that it's completely untrue! Even if one had lived in complete seclusion from other people, there's no telling that they'd be completely secluded from sex. Moreover, Con never pointed out until the last round that the person would have had to be secluded since birth. As we all know, introducing new arguments in the final round is bad conduct and against debating paradigms. However, that's irrelevant because it's not even possible. For that to happen, it would have been at the hand of the infant's care taker and therefore not their choice. This point is void. 4. Sedation Con completely ignores all arguments related to biology because he cannot argue them. Arguments: 1. Rape Here we have a most interesting argument. Con insists that "Rare examples are not enough to affirm a resolution" yet sees no problem with using rare examples to negate a resolution. For instance, expecting that one remain secluded from infancy --> forever is absurd. Similarly, committing suicide is just as ridiculous. And furthermore, a resolution without a doubt can be proven by using a rare example [2]. Nevertheless, you'll notice that Con never disputed my example of rape - he just pointed out that rape was rare. Just because something is rare doesn't mean that it can't be used as evidence. For instance, if I say "Pitching a perfect game is possible" and point out that it's been done before -- in far less than 3% of games might I add -- then of course that evidence can be used to support the resolution despite how rare it is. Also, Con's statistic is also skewed; I pointed out in the last round that the stats regarding sexual abuse are more around the area of 15% of people per year. Nevertheless, I have won this point using Con's own very definition and tactics. If his definition of homosexuality includes those who engage in homosexual behavior, then surely those who are raped fall within the category of gay. This includes all of the men who are raped in prison, or boys who were subjected to sexual abuse at the hand of others or priests. These people have been 'gay' and it was not their choice. Moreover, this example most definitely applies because Con's own definition uses the word "situationally" which clearly an act of rape is. 2. Being Once again, Con completely dropped the contentions here because he can't argue them. Counter-Examples: Extend my arguments. Conclusion: This entire debate is based on Con's inability to defend the position that one can choose their sexuality. Because he obviously cannot prove that one chooses to be gay -- and we all know what that statement really implies -- he has relied on (a) semantics and (b) a faulty definition. By his own admission, Con has completely neglected the TRUE definition of homosexuality in favor of one that suits his position. That is not an example of winning a debate ~ it is an example of manipulation. Listing suicide as an alternative to accepting one's sexual identity is clearly a semantics argument; it's a shame that Con can't win a debate the real way (via actual arguments with proper definitions). I have explained why my definition should prevail in this debate. You'll also notice that I've proven how Con is wrong even using his own faulty definition. To re-cap, one is born gay (WITH A GAY GENE) -- they just haven't realized yet that they are gay. There is no "alcoholic gene" so Con's example fails. One might be genetically inclined towards addiction; however, can avoid it. You cannot avoid your sexuality. Again, even if one commits suicide, they were gay before committing suicide. The same logic applies to sedation or seclusion, though it's much easier to see how Con's seclusion argument is horrible; life-long seclusion would not be the individual's choice. Resolution affirmed. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org...

Title: Being gay is a choice, God did not "make" them that way Content: There are tests which show that homosexuality is natural. Several, in fact, any test which shows gender attraction pretty well shows that it's not a conscious choice and that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. You may however be surprised to learn that children at the age of 2, 4, and even 6 aren't sexually attracted to people. Toddlers can spot a pretty face, but there has been no such gender attraction test for that age as you suggest. Secondly, even if there were a such a result, it wouldn't prove that being gay is a choice. Children manage to get much taller in that same time frame, clearly God did not "make" them that way and they chose to become taller! I'm not being a gay-basher either and I do *not* believe they have the same rights. They are certainly entitled to the same rights which is why the Gay Marriage issue is so pathetically inane, but you would need to be deluded to believe they actually currently have the same rights. Also, if you are suggestion that there is some set of circumstances which could allow me to choose to be gay, you're just wrong. I didn't choose to be straight, and I can't change who I am. It isn't something you choose. You really seem to be extremely confused here. You are saying that gay people can choose to be with the opposite sex and "grow up being straight yet prefering[sic] the same sex". I hate to break it to you, but preferring one gender is the core of gender preference. It doesn't matter how much sex a gay man has with a woman, if he is attracted to men and not to women he's still gay! In fact, the entire idea of that scenario you suggest goes to the heart of the matter. Gender attraction is not a choice! For that matter, neither is attraction in general, as sometimes there just isn't any chemistry. -- "I honestly do feel a little atraction for the same sex but I'm gonna spend my whole life with the opposite sex because thats what God wants." Um, are you at least attracted to the opposite sex? Because, you might just be letting theology ruin your life (and perhaps the women in your life), because it isn't a choice. If it were, Ted Haggard certainly wouldn't have chosen it, Larry Craig wouldn't have, and I'd think you wouldn't either. Nobody chooses who they are attracted to. And certainly there isn't some choice involved. If there were we wouldn't see homosexual activities in animals. Can I see the wind? Yes. I can see the wind. I can see tornadoes, hurricanes, leaves moving, trees swaying, smoke wafting. I can feel it on my skin. I can hear it rush passed my ears. I can feel the chill it brings. I can see the blue of the sky (a diffraction property of the atmosphere). I can go sailing. I can use wind turbines to power my house. Yes. The wind exists for every reason your God does not. Wind is trivial. In fact, your argument would make no sense if it were something like "can you see leprechauns?" -- Unlike wind, your God and leprechauns are exactly as detectable as each other (which is to say not detectable). The invisible and the non-existent look very much the same. You say there are records of things science can't explain? Where? Or are we talking second or third hand sources here to which no records exist? Also, just because something isn't explained, doesn't mean it can't be explained. It certainly doesn't mean that, therefore, God did it. I only mention this because it's part of the topic. Certainly your argument fails if God doesn't exist. Homosexuality isn't a choice. And outside of suggesting gender attraction sets in at around six, a point which is unproven and moot to the issue of choice, you've done nothing to prove your case.

Title: It is a choice to be gay or straight. Content: You admitted that sexual preference was only 40% based on genes and that how you are raised accounts for the other 60%. However, this argument can go in my way. Just because you are raised in a certain way doesn't mean that you believe a certain thing. You can be raised by straight parents and decide that you are gay without having a gene. Take my friend's sister for example, I know she was straight for a while as when my friend and I were younger, she would always talk about how great her boyfriend was and she went through two or three boyfriends. However, she then decided that she was going to be gay. Your sources help with your gene based side but people do have the choice. You also mentioned only men, and not once did you mention women.

Title: Prop 8 is Constitutional Content: Thanks for the debate kenballer. I begin with the understanding that, like race and gender, sexual orientation is not a choice. For example, the overwhelming scientific consensus suggests that sexual orientation is determined biologically. If my opponent wishes to debate this point, he is free to do so, but unless an argument is offered to challenge this view, I will proceed with the view that homosexuality is a form of self-identity that is beyond choice. What's more, in Frontiero v. Richardson the Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation "bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society." This ruling was backed up by a considerable body of sociological and scientific evidence, and was reaffirmed in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, where the Court overturned state regulations that discriminated against gays. The facts presented by these cases suggest sexual orientation is an irrelevant aspect of self-identity for the purposes of law and public policy. Prop 8 denies gays the right to embrace their sexual-identity and choose who they marry. These are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. As such, Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. When a fundamental right is being denied, the burden is on the state to justify this discrimination. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. This means the law must extend the same legal benefits to every U.S. citizen. If marriage is a fundamental right (as Con himself argues), then it must be extended to everyone. And this means that if straight people can get married, so can gay people. The Due Process Clause guarantees "[no State shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This means that each individual has the liberty to marry the person of their choice, regardless of sexual orientation. Prop 8 clearly violates the Due Process Clause because it deprives gay people the fundamental right to choose who they marry. In Zablocki v. Redhail, the Court invalidated a Wisconsin law that prohibited the right to marriage to any resident who failed to fulfill court-ordered child support obligations. The Court opined that the Wisconsin statute "interfered with decisions to enter into ... marital relationships"; because the Wisconsin statute "absolutely prevented" the desired ritual, it was held to be unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds. The same logic (not allowing people to enter marital relationships) could be applied to invalidate bans on same-sex marriage. As I said before, the burden is on the state to justify discrimination of gays. My opponent offers two arguments in support of a case for state-sanctioned discrimination: (1) that marriage is heterosexual in nature; and (2) that marriage is reserved for procreation. These arguments are two sides of the same coin, so I will address both of them together. My opponents says the true purpose of marriage is to procreate. But if the purpose of marriage is procreation, individual gay persons can procreate through means such as artificial insemination and surrogacy arrangements. My opponent argues, however, that it is the biological procreative capacity of male-female couples that justifies the unique status of marriage itself. This argument is a non-starter for a number of reasons. First off, it is not clear that the state must sanction discrimination of gays if our species is to procreate and survive. Therefore, if gays are allowed to marry and have families, there is no reason to suppose our species would stop procreating. As such, my opponent has provided a compelling justification gay banning gay marriage that overrides a competing state interest in not discriminating against gays. Second, no couple has ever been required to procreate in order to marry. Sterile couples and old couples can marry. Couples physically able to procreate but who do not want to procreate can marry. This proves that marriage is not essentially about procreation because procreation is not essential to any marriage. My opponent says only allowing fertile couples to marry would be impractical. Actually, it is not as impractical as my opponent seems to think. All it would require is that prospective married couples sign an affidavit stating they are able to procreate and intend to do so. If it is found, after a few years, that a couple has been unable or unwilling to procreate, the marriage could be immediately dissolved. Of course, the fact that this has not been made a law demonstrates that procreation is not essential to marriage. My opponent says that "children from two biological parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement." This point is irrelevant because of one simple fact: no serious opponent of gay marriage advocates removing children from gay parents. The facts are simple: gay families exist. As of today, over 1,000,000 children are raised by gay parents. The important thing here is that gay families are not the top-down creations of government bureaucrats or radical visionaries. They are bottom-up facts of life. It is for this reason that no serious supporter of Prop 8 would suggest taking children away from gay parents. Because individual gays have access to procreation (through artificial insemination, for example), it should be evident that the optimal partnership theory is irrelevant for the purposes of law and public policy. I have addressed my opponent's arguments and shown why Prop 8 is unconstitutional. In closing, I'd like to point out that the Supreme Court has never said that the purpose of marriage is procreation. In fact, there are many reasons the state has an interest in marriage that have nothing to do with procreation. For example, marriage provides the married person with a primary caretaker, channels sexual activity into monogamous commitments, stabilizes households, and serves a role signaling familial commitment to one's community. These are all legitimate reasons that the state has an interest in marriage. Prop 8 clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Prop 8 denies citizens access to fundamental rights, the burden is on my opponent to justify state-sanctioned discrimination of gays.

Title: There is a biological cause to homosexuality Content: Resolution: homosexuality is mostly caused by biological factors The reason "mostly" was selected is because all behaviors have some genetic impact, even if its small. Definitions: Homosexuality - in this case, a human being sexually attracted to those of the same sex Biological - in this debate, biological will be defined as genetics ("gay-gene"), hormones (a second theory which I call the hormone hypothesis argues hormones in the womb cause SSA), and brain differences (see LeVay 1991 for details). SSA - same sex [sexual] attraction Don't change or use definitions in your argunment. Don't didley with the resolution or definitions in the debate, however you can ask for a change in the comments. Rules : Round one acceptance (contender only , I have to do all this) No semantics Drops = concession forfeits = loss /end

Title: Born gay part 2 Content: Though I agree that it should not matter how we are oriented, whether from birth or from choice, and that our access to equal rights should not be contingent on us being 'born this way,' I do believe people are born gay for this reason. If it was a choice I'm sure people would opt out. There choice to do so but statistics say people do have a choice and some peoples choice would have not chosen this for their own reasons.

Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: I will be arguing that there is strong evidence that genetics play a huge role in the sexual orientation of homosexuals. Burden of proof will be on me.

Title: Homosexuality is a Choice. Content: I would like to state that as my opponent said, it is my goal to prove that the state of being homosexual is not a choice and purely a natural occurrence. The purpose of this argument was to have someone debate the fact that people choose to be attracted to people of the same gender. "Contention 1" Homosexuality is not a "germ" as my opponent stated and people can not "turn gay". It is true what my opponent says about people saying that they're gay for attention, but that does not mean that they actually are, and were not able to choose to have an attraction to people of the same gender. Homosexuality is not a germ at all, in fact is it genetic. (1) There are many factors which play into sexuality such as having older brothers, having a gay twin and brain activity to name a few. (1) However, there is no exact reason for why people are gay, but, many organisations such as The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Paediatrics, and The National Association of Social Workers all state that homosexuality should not be treated as a mental disorder that they oppose attempts at conversion therapy and that sexual orientation is not a choice and can not be changed. (Video 1 [Source 6] from 2:30 to 3:02) "Contention 2" While my opponent has his example of Ricky Martin, my point in this debate is that the state of being homosexual, meaning the physical attraction and not the lifestyle, or love life, is what I'm arguing for. My argument is that people can not choose to what gender they are attracted to. The article that my opponent provides is not fact based, rather, an outing done by Ricky Martin's skin beautician. Therefore, it might not be entirely true. The article also states that, ". .. he was never publicly seen in the company of any potential girlfriend. .. " and does not say that he ever DATED a woman. There is no proof in this article that he chose to charade his sexuality in a falsified relationship or that he's even gay at all. Now, my article (2) is an actual statement from Ricky Martin confirming his sexuality. It also states that the birth of his children convinced him to come out. The children, he had through a surrogate mother. (3) The next article I have (4) talks about (and proves the existence of) his girlfriend, Rebecca De Alba. The relationship was not a charade for the press as the article states and merely Ricky discovering his sexuality as many men do since most have a hard time accepting it. There are also a lot of risks to the process which force people further into the closet and keep people from admitting it, which may be why Martin didn't come out. (5) I for one had two relationships with girls before I came out, both very long lasting, but there was no physical attraction to them and they ended up being friendships rather than dates. It does not mean that the person chose or chose not to be gay. Attacks: My first round argument was to state that this belief in homosexuality being a choice is a problem, not to state a case. 1: ". .. there are others that take the choice to be homosexual. .. " People can not make a choice to be homosexual or not. It is a biological occurrence and is not a choice that people can make. (See "Contention 1" and "Video 2:30 to 3:02") 2: "Who are we to judge by saying that it is not a choice for everyone? Everyone is different, you can't judge for them. " Actually, if you ask a homosexual, they will state that they did not have a choice to be gay or not. Besides, who would want to choose a life where they encounter hatred, violence, bigotry, and judgement all directed at them on a daily basis? The only choice that homosexuals have is to be out or not and I am not arguing that. I am arguing that homosexuals have no choice in their attraction to members of the same sex. If the viewers of this debate would like some examples, please feel free to view Video 2 (Source 7), or Video 3 (Source 8), or Video 4 (Source 9). All of these videos are from actual gay people (or bisexual) speaking out against the ignorance of people assuming "gay is a choice". I would say the same thing these people say and I have always been gay. It was never a choice whatsoever. I await my opponents response. 1. . http://lakeweedatarrowhead.net... 2. . http://www.tmz.com... 3. . http://www.tmz.com... 4. . http://justthedish.blogspot.com... 5. . http://gayteens.about.com... 6. . http://www.youtube.com... 7. . http://www.youtube.com... 8. . http://www.youtube.com... 9. . http://www.youtube.com...

Title: Nobody Can Determines Someone's Sexuality. Content: I believe that no one can determines someone's real sexuality because sexuality is just unique. Sexuality is not about black and white. Let say for example,somebody who got same-sex experience probably they are still claimed themselves as straight because they just do experience or curious. It doesn't mean you are truly gay or lesbian because you don't have any chemistry while you did it. In my conclusion, sexuality is a personal thing that only known personally. So i think people must be careful when they judge somebodies as "Gay" or "Lesbian" because what they had done.

Title: Gay marriage Content: Homosexuals are born gay, have no choice

Title: HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE Content: Ask yourself this "when did you choose to be straight"? A person's sexual orientation is not a black or white matter, sexual orientation exists along a continuum, with exclusive attraction to the opposite sex on one end of the continuum and exclusive attraction to the same sex on the other. There is a great deal of research suggesting that sexual orientation is congenital. Common sense tells us that no one sits down one day and goes, "Hmmmm" should I be gay or straight?" but rather some people find themselves attracted to people of the same gender. But there are people who consciously decide to experiment with their sexuality, to try gay sex and see if they like it. Some radical feminists embrace lesbianism for political rather than sexual reasons. As some men in prison with strong sexual desire use other men for sex. This can cause some people to believe that homosexual behavior is the same thing as homosexual attraction. What if behavior doesn't match well with attraction? What if people usually enjoy sex with one gender but only fall in love with the other? What if a person's past doesn't reflect his or her present feelings? Sexuality is much more complex than we know, but we are gaining understanding through science. So the real question should be what causes homosexuality? Research suggest that homosexuality is hereditary. https://www.eurekalert.org... http://www.journals.uchicago.edu... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.pnas.org... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... However in spite of all of the above scientific studies, according to the American Psychological Association's own website, "there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; however most people whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." From all of this I can draw only one conclusion. Homosexuality is not a choice.

Title: Men should prefer gays to lesbians Content: 1. Introduction- It would appear that my opponent has chosen to frame his rebuttals in an alternative framework than a typical line-by-line. I do not wish to make this debate unclear and I want for the voters to follow the round easily as possible; to this end I will adopt my opponent's structure as of his last rebuttal and point out crucial drops at the end. 2. Rebuttal- Concerning the Kinsey scale analysis, My opponent seems to have ignored the fact that individuals who are an absolute 6 or 0 are very rare as most people are at least a 1 or a 5 What this means first and foremost is that most people who identify as being 'gay' are usually predominantly gay and incidentally straight as opposed to being exclusively gay. Furthermore the nurture versus nature debate[5] has shown that while each individual has inborn characteristics about them that make them naturally want to gravitate to certain things, nurture still has a very strong effect on human sexuality. Or in clearer terms; Nature is the biggest influence but nurture can have a big effect. [5] . http://allpsych.com... A classical example of this would be Dr. Robert Heath's[6] experiment where he hooked electrodes to the brain of a homosexual man to incite a pleasure response when experiencing heterosexual stimuli. The homosexual man eventually slept with a female prostitute. [6] . http://www.wireheading.com... Concerning the two provided pictures, The woman in Artifact A is 91 year old author Helen Thomas This is a picture of her in 1932: . http://www.familyoldphotos.com... The man in artifact B, is from an article talking about ugly Irishmen: . http://www.familyoldphotos.com... The point is that providing a picture over the internet is neither an accurate estimation of one's looks nor is it proof that anyone wouldn't find a person attractive. It's just shallow and mean. Here's a picture of Katy Perry: . http://ia.media-imdb.com... Here's another: . http://i.telegraph.co.uk... Here's anoth. .. oh goodness: . http://girltalk247.files.wordpress.com... An unpleasant picture of someone is not proof of, well anything. Especially not that men should prefer Gays to Lesbians. Furthermore my opponent logic following these pictures is non-sequitar to the pictures in the first place. 3. Drops- My opponent drops quite a few arguments in the previous speech, I won't try to cover them all because that would be a waste time; instead I'll focus on the more important drops. First: Equality, I speak on how preferring one group over the other because of their sexuality harms equality. This went unrefuted Second: Friendship, I speak on how Gay men are more likely to build a friendship with some-one who can relate to their problems. This went unrefuted. Third: Relatability, I speak on how a lesbian is going to know what a woman wants more than a gay man.

Title: Homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. Content: It's too late for him to reply to dropped arguments. My opponent begins, “I was trying to establish that homosexuality was unhealthy and a product of emotional and social abnormalities… Homosexuality is not ‘natural’ in the sense that it is unavoidable. .. " Homosexuality is found in 1500+ animal species [8]. They did not make the conscious choice to have a same-sex attraction given their extremely limited cognitive abilities. Con’s own source admits that sexuality is a byproduct of biology. There is nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality, and Con never proved that there is (he rightfully dropped the point about suicide). Now onto my points… 1. There are no parenting traits a heterosexual can possess that a gay person can not. Con wasted space saying I was exploiting the word “can” in the resolution (based on Mirza’s comments). My point is that any quality or trait you associate with good parenting - i. e. , responsible, caring, loving, etc. - can be possessed by gay people. Ergo, good parenting qualities or techniques are not limited to heterosexual parents. Con never negated this idea; he dropped this contention and chose to whine about something irrelevant. 2. Whether a parent has sex with a man or woman doesn't affect their parental judgment. Con dropped this in R2, and in R3 responded that it's “irrelevant. ” Clearly it isn’t – it proves that one's sexuality doesn’t impact their ability to parent effectively. 3. While 2 parents are better than one (Con agrees), it doesn’t matter if those parents are same-sex (Con disagrees). I included a study validating that 2 same-sex parents provide the same benefits to parenting that 2 heterosexual parents do: double the resources, emotional support, etc. Con said this too was irrelevant, but it proves that what parents provide and not their sexuality is what matters. 4A. I dropped the point that statistically, gay people tend to make better parents given the fact that they choose to become parents and therefore don't have an unwanted or unexpected responsibility imposed upon them like many heterosexual couples. 4B. I explained that kids with gay parents can turn out perfectly well-adjusted and why. Let’s break down Con’s rebuttal… a) Just because someone CAN turn out well adjusted doesn't mean that most will. You have reached a generalization based on insufficient evidence. --> The exact same comment can be applied to kids with heterosexual parents. They CAN turn out fine, but there are no guarantees. I included a plethora of evidence indicating that the vast majority of kids with gay parents turn out just fine. b) Fathers are more dedicated to their children much more than anybody else… --> Con never mentioned this before, let alone proved it. We have no reason to accept it as a legitimate fact. c) You can’t rely on anecdotal evidence like drug addict fathers… --> I never said that a single example should dictate the norm, so Con is wrong to suggest that I used fallacious reasoning. There was nothing in Con’s source that explained why a child's biological father is necessary or more valuable than having a positive male figure around. For instance, if one's biological father was a drug addict, they wouldn't be a preferable role model just because they shared DNA (this is an example - NOT a generalization). Having a positive figure in general is far more important than biological ties to the child. 5. Pro: Environment in general plays a role in a child's upbringing; it's not limited to parents (indicating the importance of role models). Con’s reply: You've avoided any real debate by straw manning me. I have stated that it was an unhealthy relationship and the lack of a father or a mother that affected children. Sexual orientation in itself has nothing to do with it. First, because Con didn't respond to several arguments when I typed my last round (notably 2, 5, 6 and 7), I assumed he wasn’t going to challenge them due to agreeing with me rather than exhibiting poor conduct by ignoring them. That's why I suggested he agreed - I wasn't straw manning. Con hasn't proven these reasons as remotely being legitimate causes of homosexuality, and neither have his sources. Also, it seems that by saying “Sexual orientation in itself has nothing to do with it,” that Con has basically conceded the entire debate. But back to Con’s reply… Nowhere did he establish that biological ties to parents were significantly important. He presented a study that demonstrated the quality of care infants receive affecting their development. This source never said that the care had to come from biological parents. The same thing applies to Con’s other sources-- the study indicating the benefits of rough and tumble play never mentioned the importance of the father figure’s DNA. Instead it noted the benefits of the interaction, but did not discount the same benefits from similar interaction experienced by kids with two moms or two dads. 6. Just because the child may get teased has nothing to do with a homosexual's ability to parent. Con dropped this contention twice, therefore the point stands. 7. Innumerable studies confirm that kids with gay parents show no differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures of success. Research also indicates that there are benefits to same-sex parenting which Con never challenged or denied. Con brings up several objections my studies; however, never specifies which study he is referring to that is allegedly flawed. He mentions the absence of comparison groups and their statistics as a problem, but clearly that is not true of all studies - ones I've brought up already and others [9 - 16]. These criticisms come directly lifted from Science Journal’s critique of studies from the American Psychological Association. However, my sources included studies other than the ones utilized by the APA. I never used any of the sources listed as problematic on the chart. As such, none of Con’s proposed faults apply and the results of my presented studies must be acknowledged by the audience. Con didn't present any studies indicating harms attributed to gay parenting, which is good because I could have easily discounted those based on bias, faulty sampling and other mistakes. But all we've seen in this debate are studies affirming the resolution. Sources: . http://www.debate.org...--------CONCLUSION1. Gay people are not any less likely to exhibit good parenting traits.2. What parents do in the bedroom doesn't affect their ability to parent.3. The care the child receives is important – not the sex or sexuality of the caretaker. None of Con's sources proved that biological ties are necessary in order to be positive role models, or that kids of gay parents are missing those role models. 4. The majority of every study done on gay parenting indicates no negative discrepancies in parenting styles or ability. I've included many sources; Con hasn't (and can not) discredit them all. 5. At best, research indicates that intact families are superior for raising children. Non-intact families are inferior regardless of the sexual preferences of the parents. Again, sexual preference is irrelevant to good parenting. Arguments: PRO Sources: Some of Con's sources were irrelevant. Others helped establish my case. He cited the same source 3x in the last round, and failed to provide the correct sources for his claims which inhibited my ability to respond. S/G: Con had inferior s/g by his own admission, and a hard to read/understand format that didn't align correctly with my arguments. Conduct: Wrongly accusing me of using fallacious reasoning multiple times resulted in my opponent's own red herrings. Further, completely unnecessary comments like "I'm throughly disappointed in the quality of [Pro's] response" is rude and borderline ad hominem - insulting me in general as opposed to dissecting the arguments.

Title: Being gay is not a choice. Content: Again, thanks for accepting. Firstly, I shall reject my opponent's rejection of my own definition for this debate. My definition was introduced first, and by accepting this debate, my opponent should have also accepted the defitions, as detailed in this debate I had earlier [1]. There is no good reason as to why my opponent's definition would trump my own. As for the science of it, while sexuality may be linked to the brain, the brain is merely one thing among many. Whether or not the brain is the only factor is yet to be seen, as choice has not been entirely ruled out. Now, onto the points I made last round: 2-. Suicide Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all. They do not ever have "the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex." Their brains aren't developed enough to do such things. Therefore, infants are completely irrelevant to this debate. They would not develop into homosexuals until much later. Additionally, the gayness of infants is still a choice, but in this case, it would be the choice of the parents. The parents make the conscious decision to raise the child. However, young children have suicided [2], likely before developing sexual behavior or attraction, so given that they have the option of death before ever being homosexual, this point remains. 3-. Living in Seclusion How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with? My opponent's virgin analogy apparently assumes the virgin to actually live with other people, as opposed to the hypothetical secluded person. Why would a person in seclusion possibly fit the definition of "homosexual"? 4-. Sedation Genetics and non-neurological biology are irrelevant to the definition at hand. A person can be sedated before ever being gay in the first place. Finally, having sexual intercourse while sedated is merely one rare event that my opponent cannot possibly use to affirm a conjecture. Counterexamples are only acceptable in negating a conjecture. 1+. Rape As this is a rare situation, it cannot be used to affirm a general resolution, as outlined above. For the random addition about death, the non-living entity is not gay, and is still relevant, due to having made the permanent choice not to be gay. 2+. Being These actions can be taken before sexuality develops, as I have outlined. 3+. Biology Why does this contention even exist? It is just a counter-contention to a contention that was never introduced. Conclusion: Infants are not gay, but may become gay around puberty, so future gays are not present gays. Parents have the choice of not allowing their child to have any chance of being gay in the future. Death and sedation can be chosen before sexuality develops. Counterexamples: I would like to point out that as I am CON, I am the one who only needs one counter-example (such as abortion, killing the child before its neurology develops [3], or abandoning a child in the woods to grow up in seclusion with no sexuality whatsoever) to negate the resolution. My opponent's few examples that could potentially show the resolution to be true in certain instances are irrelevant, as PRO needs to show the resolution to be entirely true. For example, in this debate [3], CON pointed out counterexamples, so that should the net result be that the end result was the resoltuion being sometimes true and sometimes false, Arguments would go to CON. With that said, I'll leave the floor to PRO. 1. http://www.Debate.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.debate.org...

Title: CHIPS should be allowed to be taught in classes. Content: Round 3 | Rebuttal and Arguments | by Eav | 7/11Rebuttal ongoing numberingR3: Misinterpretation I did not misunderstand a thing when I said that Con wrongfully claims that people are born straight. And I am still right, that he hasn’t given us any prove for this claims but his own assumptions (au contraire de moi). “This is why naturally you are attracted to the opposite sex. You have to choose to be gay, not to be straight.” (Con, Round 3) = You are born straight and you choose not to be. This can only mean that at some point you acquire the knowledge what being gay is and you choose to be it. If we were naturally straight nobody could become gay without know about it. Meaning that Con’s main problem with CHIPS can only be that it encourages kids to become gay, because it teaches about gay people. But as (see R1, Round 2) people are not born straight, this is ridiculous. And on Con’s claim that he never said that CHIPS could make kids gay, I’ll point out this quote:“Just imagine the increase if too many young children are made to join the "party" before they find out what is really going on.”R2: ImitationsIn 1a, Con again is jumping from conclusion to conclusion. Just as linking the suicides to the example story. It’s of course likely that gay people decide to kill themselves if they feel like they are rejected by society (see A2). When CHIPS lessons assign to behave gay, this only means that they make a role play where there are two mothers. They are not pointed out to kiss or act like the stereotypical gay from a bad movie. This is not the intentions. Nobody will “play gay” while the teacher says “be gayer”.R3: Too young and BullyingAgain, kids are not too young to understand that bullying and homophobia is wrong (because it’s mean and excludes nice people). They are too young to understand homosexuality. And I pointed this out: CHIPS is not about homosexuality, it’s about homophobia. That’s why it’s called: Challenging Homophobia not Checkout Homosexuality. Kids learn homophobia at home. They learn that having a mom and a dad is right, and not having is weird. And that’s how kids start bullying other kids. They know better because children are naturally likely to be hostile against unknown. That’s an evolutionary mechanism like eating only specific foods. Parents cannot just “replace” a view. They influence it strongly but a kid that once learned that homophobia is wrong is much more able to decide whether he/she will go with the parents’ opinion forever. If they learn about alternative views early, they’ll earlier challenge the parents views. R4: Accusation / Behaviour ChangeIt’s quote-time: “They won't be told the negatives of being gay, only tricking them into a happy life.” (Con9I am sorry for adding the “dangerous”, but Con certainly said negative. And all the negative Con brought up (bullying and bullying related suicides, drop-outs) are actually what CHIPS goes against. And on the matter of change behaviour: People change. It happens. Even to those not being gay. I don’t know if that’s bad personal experience but it’s not a gay-exclusive-thing to change. And on the matter of choosing to be gay: Lack of scientific prove. Still. Pro Arguments most briefly mentioned before in RebuttalsA1: CHIPS is agains homophobia and bullyingCHIPS only point is to fight homophobia. They read stories about animals that are non-sexual, they make role plays that are non-sexual, they have vocabulary being non-sexual and pro-diversion and pro-community. And by fighting homophobia we achieve that kids reduce their fear of different family structures (meaning that it is not only beneficial for kids from gay families), reduce bullying. Which is important with kids from LGBT background being three-times more likely to be bullyied {5}There is no age-minimum for bullying and therefore nobody is too young to learn why not to bully. That's why CHIPS is age appropriate. APA lists as main common feature of bullies is that they "show little empathy toward students who are victimized" {6}. And the CHIPS assignments are all about learning empathy. Which is important to learn as early as possible when they still are willing to (Primary School Kids > High School Teens). A2: CHIPS can reduce suicidesSeveral attempts on suicide reasons uncovered realtions to depression, physical abuse and social isolation {7} {8}. But not being gay itself. Therefore relating to A1, that CHIPS helps to reduce bullying (=physical abuse and social isolation) it can help to take pressure from (gay) teens that had CHIPS. When they hit puberty and discover their own homosexuality they benefit from others being less hostile and develop less fear of their desires. Ergo: Reducing their suicide risk. Sources{5} http://nobullying.com...{6} http://www.apa.org...{7} http://www.suicide.org...{8} http://www.nhs.uk...

Title: Fact: homosexuality is a choice not an inborn state of personhood Content: I will be arguing for the position that homosexuality is a choice made by individuals. As opposed to an innate or inborn personality trait. This is not an argument about whether there are people who are tempted sexually by those of their own gender. Please do not accept this debate if you intend to argue that people are tempted therefore they are gay. The argument I am making is that there is no such "person" as a homosexual separate from a person who chooses to engage in a particular act or set of acts. For example: "John is American because John was born in America" or "Danny is black because he was born with dark skin" or "Jack is a man because he was born with male body parts." As opposed to: "Derrick is a doctor because he chooses to work at a hospital diagnosing illness," or "Sam is a baseball player because he chooses to play baseball," or "Junior is a homosexual because he chooses to have a boyfriend." Logic only. No arguments from emotion. I feel this way therefore... Be respectful.

Title: Causes of homosexuality Content: FULL RESOLUTION: Evidence among HUMAN subjects (twin studies, brain, HUMAN gene etc. ) on balance shows homosexuality is genetic. ==> Clarification <== I am not interested in animal homosexuality, only what studies say on human homosexuality. Argunments saying "animals are gay" are irrelevant. My opponent argues based on the evidence amongst humans, homosexuality is likely genetic. I argue other factors are likely the main reason (non-genetic factors are the main reason). We do not need to argue the one reason is ___. But the main reason is ___. ==> BoP <== BoP on Pro (my opponent). This is non-negotiable. ==> Definitions. <== Homosexuality: human sexual attractions to the same sex. ==> Rules <== No trolling or semantics. *** I am doing this debate as the forums have had many argunments on this, and I want to defend my "bigoted" views.

Title: Sexuality is a choice Content: Contention 1- The Scientific Factor In 1990 began the Human Genome Project. It was completed in 2003, two years ahead of schedule. The purpose was not to find a gay gene in the human genome, but to identify and map out 20,000-25,000 genes in the human genome. Approxamatly 23,000 genes were identified. Not a single one was identified as a gay gene. My opponent now has the burden of proof as to whether the gay gene actually exisists Conclusion- The gay gene just does not exist so homosexuality cannot possibly be biological or genetic Contention 2- The Psychological Factor There are plenty of psychological factors in the "Is Sexuality A Choice" Debate that point to yes, it is a choice Abuse- Many people, gay and straight, have been victim of abuse as a child. This abuse can range from, mental, emotional, sexual, physical and even neglect. The responses to these forms of abuse are different from person to person. It can range from acting out violently toward the opposite or same sex, promiscuity, self abuse, and even homosexuality. In a study done by the Masters-Johnson Institute a 25 year old homosexual man revealed his first sexual experience to be with an older gay man arranged by his lesbian mother. after 3 1/2 years of treatment due to the desire to be straight, his sexual interactions were now exclusively heterosexual. Alfred Kinsey, a prominant biologist conducted many psychological tests on groups of homosexuals. One of the studies by the Kinsey Institute in 1970 showed 81% of 684 gay men and 93% of 293 lebians shifted their sexual orientation. In 1940 a study of 1700 homosexuals only 9% claimed they were born gay. In 1970 a similar percent was said of 983 homosexuals. It was not until 1983 when the gay movement really took off, that the percent of homosexuals who claimed to be born gay rose to 35% Going back to the abuse claim. A girl who identifies as lesbian says she was largely ignored by her father as a young child and now, at the age of 16, says the same thing of him She admits that while she knows he loves her, he has never actually said "I love you" or shown any kind of affection towards her. However, her mother always did. She says her mother has always stuck by her no matter what. When she was diagnosed with Juvinile Rhumadoid Arthritis, it was her mother who took her to the doctor. It was her mother who comforted her. It was her mother who took her to her check ups. Her only other role model is a lesbian woman who is best friends with her mother. She has no male role models in her life, be it significant or insignificant. It is obvious from a psychological standpoint that the girl's father neglected her need for affection but her mother did not, therefore she, from a young age, can only associate love and affection with females. Conclusion- There are many environmental factors, be it a political movement or abuse or whatever, that psychologically affect sexuality Contention 3- The God Factor If we were to exclude atheists and anyone else who does not ascribe to a belief system involving a diety, we can all agree that God loves everyone regardless, but there are also a set of rules in which we must obey set forth by this God, no matter what we call him. We must agree that this God is all powerful and does not make mistakes, We must also agree that there are many things that God does not want us to do in which we do. That does not mean He loves us less, just that we should not do it. One of those things that God tells us not to do is practice homosexuality. I do not believe that any sin is worse than the other, but this shows that God did not intend for homosexuality to be practiced, and if we agree that God does not make mistakes, we must agree that homosexuality is a choice made by man Conclusion- If we agree there is a God and we agree on His personality and heart as described by the three top religions in the world (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) we must agree that He did not intend for men and women to be gay, therefore he would not have created them to be so Contention 4- Cynthia Nixon (Psychology part 2) Cynthia Nixon, an actress, was previously married to a man. After their divorce, she started a relationship with a woman. While I cannot say whether or not this happens every day to many women, it does happen. A woman will be sexually attracted to a man then after a failed relationship or a number of failed relationships, she decides to see what a woman can do for her, both physically and emotionally. This is a sign of a conscious choice made by a person to be homosexual, whereas, the previous example I gave about the girl associating love and affection with women due to her distant father was a subconscious choice. Nixon even admitted it was a choice. Conclusion- Homosexuality can be either a conscious or subconscious choice Contention 5- Lady Gaga, Dan Savage, and the It Gets Better Movement (Psychology part 3) Lady Gaga, a popular entertainer, dropped her debut album, The Fame, in 2008. She released a song Alejandro in 2009. The song was said to be in support of gay marriage. The song was released, admittedly by Gaga, in response to her huge gay following. In The Fame, there were no gay themes to her songs. This was followed by her next album, Born This Way, which had several gay impowerment songs, including the title track, promoting the idea that a homosexual is born gay Shortly before the release of Born This Way, Dan Savage, a syndicated columnist, started the It Gets Better Movement in response to a rash of 2010 suicides of gay youth resulting from bullying. While I fully support the idea of trying to prevent more teen suicides, this movement, like Gaga, supports the idea that you are born gay and it is not a choice you have. This is an example of how propaganda can influence one to believe a certain way. Conclusion- Media propaganda can influence one to believe they are born gay I admit my final contention is probably petty, but that is not a concession. I eagerly await my opp's rebuttal, and thank her for accepting this challenge

Title: Homosexuality is not human nature it's human nurture Content: You've reiterated the fact that you were born gay, however you have no evidence to back up this claim. Due to the fact that there is no evidence to support this claim. The idea of blindly nurturing nature without proof that it really is nature is a dangerous move in the long run. The only reason that I consider it dangerous is because if there is by some chance some way this country escapes some sort of major catastrophe and the evolution of the community of a whole is going to end up with some sort of warped view of themselves that has to no scientific backing. The thing is this empire and country will fall and your lifestyle will be a null and void lifestyle. Because society is going to revert back to the need and functionality of reproduction. You see in your lifestyle the most basic of basic purposes for sex is leisure and pleasure and love. This type of lifestyle flourishes in an over populated society. Which is why I said it is lifestyle of luxury. However in a heterosexual lifestyle the most basic of basic reasons for sex is reproduction. The love and leisure are secondary. So until a woman is pregnant and the doctor can do a blood test to determine whether or not the child is homosexual much the way you can with down syndrome or diabetes. Your debate point of being born gay is a void point. Second pulling from one side of the nurture vs nature debate and quoting different authors is not a reliable source of debate. For I can pull just as many authors that will say it's nurture and this debate becomes pointless. To nurture your points however saying that I study the genetic, neuroscience and cognitive development of a child that is supposedly born gay is a bit pointless due to the fact that a baby lacks frontal lobe development.(cognitive thought) The child loves its mother but doesn't know why, and it is not in love with childhood friends. For sake of getting a point across we will use your Steven Pinkner point even though he is notoriously biased and only approaches studies from one side of the coin. In saying we look at the boy during puberty is in fact that an unfair test subject due to the fact that 1. unless the child was proven to be a sterile test subject i.e evidence can soundly be shown that the boy has received no contaminating education. (Seeing Bruce Jenner on a magazine) Then the study can not be completed because we can not say the child wasn't mislead. 2nd Genes do not control the human behavior completely. Genes regulate the production of amino acids in the body which combine to form proteins. The existence or absence of a portion can AFFECT things like alcohol tolerance or mood. However affecting something is not the same thing as having complete control over it. In other words alcoholism can be genetic if a child's parents and grandparents were alcoholics and they saw their parents receiving stress relief at the end of a long day as a child. However if that child is moved to an area that alcohol is banned the child will not still be an alcoholic. Homosexuality was thought to be able to be passed on in the early 90's and an abhorrent question was developed on how to abort an unwanted gay baby. Which led to a study where a child was taken from a surrogate lesbian couple after being given up for adoption, the child was placed into a heterosexual household the child grew up straight. Without education the child is unable to pass "gay genes". They simply do not exist.

Title: If Emotional Intelligence Exists, Homosexuality Must Be a Choice Content: I will be arguing that homosexuality is not a choice, emotionally or in any other form. I'll start off by a scientific study to find the chromosome differences in gay men to straight men (http://www.webmd.com...). There even mentions his excerpt "Since sexual orientation is such a complex trait...". Hear that? It's not based on emotional intelligence, although you can make the case that some people choose to ignore their homosexuality and have relationships with girls although they aren't sexually attracted to them. There's a bunch of genes, DNA and chromosome properties that effect if a person is gay. Now I know you said that this debate was not about whether homosexuality is a choice, which is weird, but I have stated from another scientific view that homosexuality is not based off emotion. Therefore your whole argument is flawed because sexual orientation is not emotional. Also why have this debate in the first place if it's obvious that homosexuality is in your DNA and genes?