Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way'

I will begin by rebutting my opponent's arguments and then re-emphasize my original points, very little of which my opponent has addressed.Twin StudiesI must clarify that identical twins are not complete clones of each other. True, they are both very similar and share a significant amount of DNA, but it must be understood that identical twins are NOT exactly the same. A study carried out in November 2012 found from 92 pairs of fetuses that identical twins have around 360 genetic differences very early in the fetus stage. This is because despite the womb's small space, the two fetuses are still exposed to different parts of the environment in the womb, creating variations. These variations include an additional X chromosome mutation in one fetus but not the other and different phenotypes (this one always occurs)I would also like to point out that in my opponent's previous argument, he states: "If one twin is gay, and the other twin is gay 50% of the time, the concordance rate is 50%, so the trait is estimated to be around 50% genetic." 50% is actually very high; fraternal twins have around 22% chance of sharing sexuality, and humans in general have around a 10% chance of being a homosexual. This essentially shows that since identical twins share homosexuality five times more than an average non-twin person does, it at the very least shows that genetics play a significant role in terms of sexual orientation.Again, my opponent makes a pseudo "God of the gaps" argument where he assumes by attacking genetics it automatically proves that homosexuality is caused by environmental factors. However, I must point out that attacking anything, whether it be genetics or hormones or something else, does not automatically substantiate your case, as science, or in this case, the science of homosexuality, is not an "if then else" statement. I do not think that homosexuality is 100% genetics, what I do believe is that homosexuality is caused by a mixture of genes and hormones. This I will elaborate on later.Gay ParentsIn my previous argument, I failed to put in several important points related to statistics. Not to worry though, I will put them here. Homosexual people make up about 10% of the global human population. As such, homosexual couples, especially homosexual couples who have kids, are not especially easy to find. In the Cameron and Cameron study, only 17 of the 5182 randomly chosen adults wrote out in the questionnaire that they had homosexual parents. This causes a very common statistical bias, which I will explain this way. Say for example you had 2 groups, group A and group B. Group A has 100 people while group B has 10. Now lets say 9 people from each group had a pet cat. The 9 people in group A only make up for 9% of the entire group, so only 9% of group A has a cat. However, 9 people in group B makes up for 90% of the entire group, so 90% of the people in group B has a cat. So essentially with the logic used by my opponent and the scientists he cited, people in group B have a higher chance of having a cat than the people in group A. This makes absolutely no sense, as both groups have the same amount of people who own a cat, it's the amount of people in each group that is different. This is the same for random sample surveys such as Cameron and Cameron. And then you have the issue of whether or not a person is willing to admit that he/she was raised by homosexuals. There are a number of areas of doubt in these types of surveys for this reason, and I highly question the credibility of them.In my opponent's second paragraph in this line of argumentation, he/she only uses child custody cases and fails to consider sperm donation or child with a previous lover(not husband/wife).My opponent's third paragraph states that since children receive 50% of genes from each parent, homosexual parents should have a 50% chance of having a homosexual child. By this logic, heterosexual parents should have a 100% chance of having a heterosexual child (both parents are heterosexual). This is obviously not the case. Reorientation Therapy"My opponent’s main argument is twofold: The APA dislikes it; The studies are flawed"I don't know from where you interpreted this from, this is not what I meant, and I must ask you to avoid trivializing my arguments based on your own whims.Therapy: treatment intended to relieve or heal a disorder.My opponent continues to insist that homosexuality can be remedied through therapy. Above is the definition of therapy. My opponent does not wish to classify homosexuality as a disease and dismisses it as an appeal to emotion, but this is simply a logical deduction, a simple one at that. Homosexuality cannot be a physical disease, as no bacteria, virus, fungus, or other outside pathogens are involved, nor is auto-immune response to blame. Thus, it should be a psychological disease, but psychologists should be able to distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals if it was, which they can't, as proved by two of the links I provided before. Therapy implies that there is something wrong with the person, and if my opponent wants to insist that reorientation therapy works then he must admit that homosexuals have something wrong with them, otherwise, he will be self-refuting.There is also no reliable evidence that suggests that such therapy actually works. In 2006 the Catholic Medical Association sourced a 1979 study which found that 70% of homosexuals were converted by therapy by William Masters and Virginia Johnson, a husband and wife team, to prove that reorientation therapy works. The credibility of this husband and wife team, however, leaves much to be desired. Masters refused to provide the evidence used to draw this conclusion when the clinic's top physician asked for tape recordings of these cases. Johnson was a self taught therapist who didn't have a college degree and mostly relied on her husband for his medical expertise. Johnson, decades later, stated that her husband might have been "a little creative" with the results at worst, or he didn't know what he was talking about at best. In my opponent's paragraph that attempts to discredit the APA's study, he/she uses a number of logical fallacies, including the assumption that "strong methodology" = "correct" and "APA uses people that support conclusion" = "bias". This is the same as saying "There was strong methodology used to determine the Earth was flat, but in came the scientific community who determined the methodologies used to prove that the Earth was flat were flawed, and they only allowed round-earth scientists to publish results, so that must equal bias." Sometimes when organizations such as the APA say something is flawed because it is flawed, not because of bias. AnimalsThe source used to substantiate this article is dripping with arrogance. It essentially says that "Humans are rational and moral creatures, animals are not, therefore animals have zero relation to humans." Not only is this logically fallacious, it is also completely and utterly wrong. To prove why this statement makes no sense, take for example a peaceful person and a serial killer. Just because one person has violent tendencies doesn't change the fact that both of them are human. Moreover, we are more similar to animals than a lot of us like to admit. We all have some form of communication. Primates are all very social animals, like us. Some primates such as chimpanzees and bonobos engage in mouth to mouth contact and oral sex. The red howler monkey screams to warn ALL animals in the vicinity that a predator is coming. Eagles are always willing to protect their chicks with their life, which is more than we can say for ourselves. Moles have a very complicated and intricate tunnel system that can be compared to our sewage and roadway systems. My point is, we are close to animals than we think, and this baseline must be established. I did not list out a lot of the animals that display homosexual tendencies, but it seems the situation requires me to. Bottolenose dolphins display distinctly homosexual behavior, with male dolphin anally penetrating other male dolphins and female dolphins nuzzling another female's vaginal area with its nose. Elephants engage in very affectionate behavior and mounting with other elephants of the same gender, and these relationships are very long term. Homosexual behavior in male giraffes was found to be more common than heterosexual behavior. The list goes on, I still have to summarize my points. As said before, gay people come in all shapes and sizes, from fat gays to skinny gays, from rich gays to poor gays, from white gays to black gays, from Christian gays to Muslims gays. If homosexuality was really environmental, all of these people should come from similar backgrounds or share similar environmental experiences. However, they obviously don't. The son of a doctor is just as likely to be gay as a son of a drug lord. The daughter of a celebrity is just as likely to be gay as the daughter of a homeless woman. But there are genetic similarities: all gay men share the same genetic signatures on part of the x-chromosome XQ28. Homosexual women are more similar to heterosexual men than they are to heterosexual woman, and the reverse is true for homosexual men. This is found in right brain size. left handedness, spatial judgement, etc. If homosexuality was really mostly environmental, then why are there so many innate anatomical traits associated with homosexuality?http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://genetics.thetech.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://science.howstuffworks.com...http://www.slate.com...