There's no such thing as being born GAY!

Thank you for your timely reply. "I am NOT going to cite sources or back up material for a lot of information that I use for several different reasons; either it is common knowledge, common sense, or the information in my argument can easily be verified and looked up at any time on any search engine." No comment. The voters can judge this statement. "...yet there are lots of heterosexual men born with lower levels of testosterone so if what you are saying is accurate then these men should be GAY." The word 'lots' is a generalized word to make an argument look stronger. However, with no statistics or sources, I can not prove this fact true. It is your job as a debater to cite and make claims backed up with sources. It is like saying "there are a lot of people in the world. Search it up on a search engine." It is your job as a debater to provide these details. I have to analyze and view this comment as unproven. " Also falling in love is scientifically proven to lower levels of testosterone in males and increase testosterone in females which means that testosterone levels have intermittent highs and lows throughout the lifetime of a human being." This is true. However, my study has proven this at birth, as these would not affect the outcome of the study I provided. "First I will start by saying that there is no definitive proof that lower levels of testosterone effect sexual orientation. You never mentioned the female hormone estrogen which some females are born with lower levels of but are not Lesbians." Men and women both have testosterone, so the levels of estrogen is unnecessary into determining the sexual orientation of a person. Many sexually differentiated characteristics are organized by sex steroids, which I agree with you, but it also affects sexual orientation. Multiple sexually differentiated behavioral, and physiological traits are significantly different in homosexual and heterosexual people. Some of these traits are known to be organized by prenatal steroids, including testosterone. These differences suggest that homosexual subjects were exposed to endocrine conditions during development.[1] Testosterone is a steroid hormone responsible for sexual orientation. In addition, my opponent misread my argument, as I said when the male fetus receives too little testosterone, it causes the sexual orientation. The study I provided was only studied over males. I did not imply females get to choose. It was a stretched assumption made by my opponent. "...why have none of these athletes who habitually have taken this supplement have displayed any homosexual-like behavior or characteristics in any way what-so-ever?? Odd don't you think? And you use this estranged person called Dr. Ward? I looked him up and couldn't find a Dr. Ward only someone named Dr. Ward F. Odenwald if that's who you're talking about who did his research on HOMOSEXUALITY in 1995!! I was 9 years old!!" They have not displayed homosexual behaviors because it effects the early development of babies, and not adults. The study you did looked up was the one I did provide in my sources. It is important to remember that I provided over 5 studies, this being the most outdated one. All of them proved that sexual orientation was decided at birth. Being critical over one study, that is still reliable and even helps prove the more recent studies, is unnecessary. Providing one outdated study is better than displaying none, like my opponent. (Unless you count Wikipedia, none cited, so the information cannot be trusted nor verified.) "I'm a female and I was attracted to other females for almost 6 years and now I'M NOT!! I'm attracted to guys and have been dating them ever since!" Yes, as I stated before, people can change their viewpoints. As we argued earlier on, there is no test we can give a person after birth to determine if they are straight or homosexual. Just because of your personal experience, (needless to say only one experience), should not be the determining factor of the majority of studies. Sure, people can change their views. However, even by the confusion, (which could be from external factors), there is still the underlying factors that have been ingrained in the memory. "And you consider people who live as pedophiles, scam artists, rapists and so forth to be "ACTUAL CHOICES" and "POOR DECISIONS" yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not? LMAO Get out of here! There are STRAIGHT men who even do this for the money and solely for the money so get the heck out of here but in your biased logic it can't be an ACTUAL CHOICE or male prostitution it's an "epi-mark" no wait it's too much "Androstenedione" at birth, no no it's "lack of Testosterone"!! Wait it's in the "BRAIN"!! HAHA Which one is it?? Pick one! LMAO!!" As you can tell by my opponents choice of language, like "lmao", my opponent does not take this as a serious debate. Saying it is a poor choice for a guy being gay is judging. "... yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not?" Another person could judge for a girl wanting to do that to a guy. There is no difference, as this does not even matter into the deciding factor of if someone is born gay. My opponent only supplied her personal opinion, displayed a multitude of times throughout this debate, with rude language, a closed mind, and no sources. The answer is clear, as I supplied multiple studies (that non my opponent actually refuted with sources), and thorough explanations. My opponent simply acted as if the assumptions made on my opponents part were correct, as with no sources or statistics, cannot be proven. My sources are credible and reliable. My opponent used one personal experience. Vote pro. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...