Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way'

Twin studies My opponent claims twins are not identical. Although this is true, it is incorrect to simply wave away the entire argument. Separated twin studies and traditional twin studies often have the same results, suggesting twins are genetically similar enough in order to garner significant results [1]. Twin studies have also found genetic effects/environmental effects (which are well accepted) in the medical field, such as dyslexia and arthritis. They also have found height, eye color, autism, etc. [2] So this cannot simply be waived because a few differences can be found. I must also note 50% genetic is considered a ‘moderate’ effect. Again, to put it into perspective, the concordance rates for heterosexuality are 98%. Now if we assume twins have a 22% chance of a concordance rate, which means homosexuality is 22% genetic. This is a weak effect. And it fails to take into account the placenta effect which I described last round, which reduces the genetic effect by 15%. So the actual effect is 7%--or, in other words, very little genetic component. And my opponent does not understand what concordance is. Concordance is only how often if one twin is gay the other one is gay—not how common homosexuality is. Regardless, the 10% number is total baloney—surveys pin the number at around 3.4% [3]. That number is based upon small non-random surveys in the 40s. Twins are likely gay at about the same rate (out of 100 twins 3 will be gay). If concordance rate is 10%, chances are in a sample of 100 none of the other children will be gay (only 3 out of all of them, 0 concordance). Also note I never said the concordance rate was 50%, I merely gave an example. I pinned the number down at about 11%, a minimal effect. Gay Parents 10% of the population is not homosexual. My opponent is relying upon extremely weak data in the 40s and acting like it has not been refuted. The best surveys find the prevalence of homosexuality to be at 1-3.4%, not 10%. Now his criticism of the study is valid, but he drops so much evidence. He drops at least 10 studies summarized by Schumm, some using large random sample sizes, other using small sample sizes, all finding children of gay parents are more likely to be gay. Now to say people will not say they were raised by gay parents on a survey has no warrant—it is merely a hypothetical. My opponent throughout the debate relies on hypotheticals, whereas I am relying on hard data. So he would have to prove why, on an anonymous survey, to researchers they don’t know, why they would lie. And, again, it ignores the fact I cited a wealth of other research which he conveniently chooses to ignore. Due to the fact no data that I know of tells us how often IVF occurs, we cannot assume gay people usually do this. A hypothetical with no proof. I made a simple comparison. Assuming homosexuality was 100% inborn, this would be the case. But it isn’t. And, as environmental factors determine homosexuality, we could not assume 100% of those raised by straight people would be straight. The fact—from dozens of studies—that gay parents are likely to raise gay children has not been refuted. One study has been responded to. To reiterate, a large study by Schumm expanding the Cameron dataset, the Morrison dataset, obtaining more anecdotal cases (separate dataset), and an anthropological dataset all found the same conclusion: being gay varied significantly based upon your parental environment, and varied significantly culture to culture [4]. Reorientation therapy My opponent says he didn’t say this. Ok. Prove that you didn’t. Your entire argument was based upon critiques of a few studies and citing an APA report. Pretty sure my summary of your argument is valid. My opponent relies upon semantics. Who cares if it is a disease. We are not debating ‘homosexuality is a mental disorder’. We are debating ‘Are homosexuals born that way’. So the only thing about the research I noted is simple: homosexuality is fluid, mutable, and changes. Genetic/hormonal behaviors do not change, therefore homosexuality is not inborn. Whether or not it is a disease or even should be treated is irrelevant. The fact is therapy causes them to change. Stop playing semantics on the word therapy. Further, R1 states “No trolling, semantics, stuff like that.” Thus, my opponent actually breaks a rule and concedes. Now my opponent says there is no evidence. He ignores everything I said. Who cares about the Catholic Medical association—I didn’t cite them. The 1979 study? I didn’t cite it, I cited 1970s meta-analysis in conjunction with newer ones (to prove the state of the science is unchanged). So again, this is irrelevant. It must be noted what my opponent said is not a ‘logical’ fallacy. He is saying I am using faulty logic, but that isn’t a fallacy. But I digress, let’s look at his criticism. He essentially admits my studies have strong methodologies, but refuses to accept them as correct. It must be noted there was actually no methodology proving the earth was flat. Strong methodologies and observations, however, prove it is round (and proved it was round in the past) [5]. Most others thought it was flat due to religion or based their observations around a flat earth, assuming a round earth was impossible. My opponent really fails to refute my point as the flat earth analogy does not apply well. As he provides no strong counter evidence—and no new arguments can be brought forth last round (usually)—he essentially concedes I provide strong evidence and instead relies upon a fallacy. Which one? The fallacy of false analogy. So, ironically, it is my opponent, not me, relying upon fallacious argumentation. Gay Animals My opponent argues first with my source—not with what I said. Thus, it is a red herring. And my opponent notes a lot of similarities. Cool. But I cited monkeys—closest living relatives—and show how their sexuality varies greatly from ours in other respects [6]. Due to the fact sexuality—something we are debating here—greatly differs tells us a lot. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest heterosexuality as well may not even be inborn [7]. Thus, as animals have differing environments in regards to heterosexuality and homosexuality, the fact gay animals exist is not something which harms my case. I must also point out my opponent ignores the evidence showing animals—like rams—are gay through environmental changes [8]. Thus, there is no reason to believe other animals who engage in homosexuality are not homosexual due to environmental forcings. This is something my opponent has ignored. So even assuming all of these animals are really ‘gay’, it does not mean they are born that way. Indeed, Penguins often have long gay relationships—like elephants. However, a Penguin relationship (which was gay) lasted 6 years. It was trumpeted how being gay is natural. But they broke up—and one of the penguins is heterosexual [9]. Homosexuality—even in the animal kingdom—seems to be fluid, in other words, not inborn. I will say my opponent’s arguments in relation to monkey’s is interesting. But engaging in oral sex is not a strong relationship, really. They have mouths like ours and all animals like sexual pleasure. The fact they figured out putting their mouth down there and it feels good does not mean they are genetically similar. In fact, that is an environmental factor! Dolphins having sex may also be a non-genetic thing. Indeed, although many claim dolphins are bisexual and often exclusive heterosexuality, there is no proof of this. Claims of dolphin homosexuality stem from misrepresentation of a study, which said the word ‘bisexual’, but the way it was used only meant male and female dolphins (bisexual) continue to live near their birthplace [10]. Thus, the ‘gay dolphin’ argument is not really true and is often misinterpreted behavior. Essentially, animals have sex in a similar way rapists do. Often to display power. Or to avoid conflict, or for other, non ‘gay’ reasons [11]. So the fact homosexual behavior exists is not a strong argument suggesting animals are born gay, but that they engage in homosexual behavior. Even in animals with long term relationships, one or both of the partners seem to break apart and become either asexual or heterosexual. Even in the animal kingdom, as sexuality is fluid, not inborn. Summary? My opponent’s points were refuted in R1 (e.g. what environmental factors cause homosexuality). To say being gay only exists in the same environment is to not understand how sexuality develops. Merely because something may increase the chance of homosexuality occurring does not mean it will always cause it to occur. I noted in R1 there are dozens of possible environmental factors—some of which likely exist in every society. Areas with more of these factors (e.g. urban areas) were more likely to produce homosexuals. If it was inborn, this would not occur. I also noted how the level of homosexuality in different societies varies greatly, indicating environmental factors do play a role. My opponent’s case was already refuted. The XQ28 is essentially refuted under twin studies. If little genetic effect is detected, that gene cannot play a large role in the development of homosexuality. So any ‘look at this gene!’ studies are refuted under twin studies. It must be noted my opponent has not offered one study under twin studies proving his point—and if he does, he breaks a rule accepted on the website (no new arguments last round). The brain studies are bunk. They compare gay people with AIDS to straight people. AIDS actually changes the hypothalamus region which is supposedly changed due to homosexuality. Further, as the brain changes with use and environmental factors [12], it does not prove being gay is inborn. Only 3% of left handed people are gay (compared to 2% of the total population—or even 3% in the survey cited earlier) suggests the effect is only 0-1% [13]. The relationship has almost no effect. Vote Con. http://tny.cz...