Gay Adoption

Refutations to rebuttal to response to case 5: "A neurosurgeon is a physician who specializes in the diagnosis and surgical treatment of disorders of the central and peripheral nervous system including congenital anomalies, trauma, tumors, vascular disorders, infections of the brain or spine, stroke, or degenerative diseases of the spine. " Ben Carson is this, if we are to trust you in saying what he is. However, these sorts of things are NOT AT ALL related to homosexuality. Nor is the fact that he ran for president. This is a massive appeal to authority. You're stating that because of his position, he's correct, no matter what, which is ludicrous. Despite his job and the fact that he ran for president, he has not produced any evidence to support him. "There are many factors as I said in my last argument. Environmental and spiritual factors that determine a trait can be changed. Given the right methods, sexual orientation can be changed. " It's a shame there has been no proof to support your claim. "Well, people find it taboo. People like the taboo. " You. Are. Kidding. Me. Gays get death threats for their sexuality, some are killed for their sexuality, teenagers are practically robbed of their future for their sexuality. But you're telling me that they like the fact that it has prejudice against it? Pure excrement. This is like saying black people like to be discriminated against. "First of all, these conversions do not always fail". the point is that we can and do change. " No proof to back this up. It is a mere claim, nothing more. There has been no evidence to show that it changes. "But later, several years into my exploration of feminist politics, what I once found desirable (heterosexuality and sexism) became utterly unappealing. I became critical of homophobia and sexism in ways that allowed these forces far less power to determine the shape of my desires. If this had not happened, no doubt I"d be married to a man". But instead, I was drawn to queerness for various political and emotional reasons, and from my vantage point today, I believe it to be one of the best desires I ever cultivated. [emphasis added]"" So a lady discovered that she was bisexual, though more strongly towards women than towards men. This is no proof. "As you can see, homosexuals themselves admit it is a choice. " This presupposes this Jane lady is a representative for all homosexuals, which is untrue. You have seen ONE person claim that homosexuality is a choice, and because of that, you generalise it by implying ALL homosexuals say this. "Others, like Jane, change over time. " Change over time? That contradicts your point. Your point was that homosexuality was a choice. This quote contradicts that. Your sources have a habit of contradicting you don't they? "I'd like to fire a question back at you. If they knew their parents are against it, why did they openly say they were homosexual? " Because they wanted to be themselves? Because they thought that maybe, just maybe, that their parents would accept them? Because they might not have known their parents were homophobic? I'd like to provide further science to disprove your claim that homosexuality is a choice: We learn (in our basic biology and sex ed classes) that erections are involuntary. "As an autonomic nervous system response, an erection may result from a variety of stimuli, including sexual stimulation and sexual arousal, and is therefore not entirely under conscious control. " (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) What YOU suggest is that we can control what turns us on and what doesn't. This has no proof behind it whatsoever. Refutation to rebuttal to response to case 1: "They're saying that the way that advocates for "no difference" conducts their research is flawed. " You admit it is just a claim. It's just that there is no evidence to support this claim of yours, therefore it is irrelevant. Refutation to rebuttal to response to case 2: "Again, if children of homosexual parents get this messed up in just this short amount of time, how messed up will they be if raised for longer periods of time. If anything, it lays as proof that just a short time of homosexual parenting is harmful. " I suggest that you take your time to understand your sources before you post them, because as shown here, you have no clue what yours is about. Mark was STUDYING adults who had BEEN RAISED by gay parents. However, MOST of his subjects WERE NOT RAISED by gay parents. Do you seriously see the flaw in his research? Most of the people he was studying didn't even fit into his category. His entire research was cocked up. The fact that you do not understand this proves how you do not even look hard at your own sources. Refutation to rebuttal to response to case 3: "I did prove it. I used another source besides Ben Carson which you didn't even mention in your argument. " You have proved that you don't read your sources. Nothing else. " I have shown through my sources that the increased suicide and depression rate is due to being homosexual. No matter how you spin it, homosexuality is a choice and it leads to an increased suicide and depression rate. " You frustrate me so much. The AUTHOR OF YOUR OWN SOURCE contradicts you. The AUTHOR OF YOUR OWN SOURCE said it was NOT due to the homosexuality, but due to the STIGMA AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY. You're making the mistake of "correlation = causation" and you're only digging yourself a bigger hole by not properly reading your own sources. "homosexuals choose to come out and say they're homosexual. " Choosing to say they're homosexual is NOT the same as choosing to become homosexual. That is self-evident. "IF bullying is the cause" So you're denying that bullying causes psychological problems? You. Have. Got. To. Be. Joking. "However, my sources laid out the fact that homosexuality is the causation of those statistics. " Wrong. The author of YOUR OWN SOURCE said it was the STIGMA AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY. "you ignore it. " The irony is too much; you ignore so much of your own sources. "May I ask how dating violence is attributed to people not accepting them? " Why don't you ask the author of YOUR OWN SOURCE? "Either way you spin it, it strenghtens my case. " No it does not. All it proves is that bullying causes this. Refutation to rebuttal to response to case 4: "You say the trend may not be present today; yet provide zero data to prove otherwise. " You made the claim that the trend IS PRESENT, YOU provide the proof. I am being logical here, as one should be in a debate. You are trying to illogically shift the burden of proof. Don't dig yourself any more holes. "This shows that homosexuals (included bisexuals) are more likely to cheat. Note that the article didn't say that homosexuals cheat less than bisexuals while it said that heterosexuals cheat less. Thus, the article lets us know that bisexuals and homosexuals cheat more than heterosexuals. (2) " Brilliant, you use a source that is 20 YEARS out of date. Again. I'm seeing a trend with you. "As I showed earlier, homosexuals adopting will do more harm than good. " What? That's it? Because YOU made cases, you think it's okay to ignore mine? CONCLUSION Lovely, it's finally over. Consider this a summary of this argument: Con uses a logical fallacy to support his point: the appeal to authority fallacy. He states that because of Carson's position, he is right by default, despite not giving any evidence to support him. Moreover, he gives claims about sexuality being changed but yet again gives no evidence. He then suggests that homosexuals become homosexuals BECAUSE OF THE PREJUDICE. A ludicrous claim. Then he says that all my research is flawed because. .. well. .. he doesn't actually give much of a reason. He just claims it. Next, he says how one woman discovered she was attracted to women and thus homosexuality is a choice. He then generalises all homosexuals by saying all homosexuals support her. He pretty much lies to me right here. Furthermore, his claims defy basic sex ed and basic biology. He then fails to understand his own argument, ignoring the fact that the data collection method was extremely flawed. His OWN SOURCE conflicts with his own point, which suggests he didn't even read it properly. He also makes a correlation = causation argument, something which is completely fallacious. Next (I thought this deserved its own line), he suggests that bullying DOES NOT cause psychological problems. He then lies by saying his source clearly supports him, whereas it actually supports me. He also tries to shift the burden of proof onto me by claiming something is true and then essentially challenging me to prove it is not. He then uses a source which is 20 years out of date. Then (this deserves its own line too), he completely ignores my own argument. I hope you had a nice time reading our debate, sorry I got frustrated with Con nearing the end (showed pretty clearly didn't it? ), this topic does that to me.