Homosexuality is a Choice

I will address each topic as you have listed them for your convenience. A. Homosexuality in animals- It is indeed poor science to read human motivations in animals.As psychologist and biologist James D. Weinrich once noted, "When animals do something that we like we call it natural. When they do something that we don"t like, we call it animalistic" The problems (which are many) with the gay animal theory are 1. Motivation- We cannot determine whether the animal is indeed showing a preference for an animal of the same sex, or just displaying and asserting dominance which most biologists suggest. 2.Moral implications- By this logic we should also consider infanticide, eating ones own defecation, and incest normal as those too are found in nature. Animals are also unable to give consent therefore we do not know if the animal is being raped or if the animal is involved in a fight for dominance. To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli. Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another. Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse. In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails. 3. Distinction- The majority of the studies done in this realm do not distinguish between homosexual behavior and homosexuality as an orientation and are therefore invalid as we cannot determine which the animal is engaging in. 4. Science- One of our foremost behavior genetics experts, Thomas Bouchard, has argued forcefully that "one of the most unfortunate misinterpretations of the heritability coefficient is that it provides an index of trait malleability (i.e., the higher the heritability the less modifiable the trait is through environmental intervention)." To make a long story short, the Gay Animal theory is dead in the water as we cannot attribute human feelings to animals. It is impossible to know the animals motivation, therefore it is impossible to know if the behavior is homosexual and it is certainly not possible to read a human sexual orientation in a non human animal. B. Behavioral analysis- I will begin by stating the obvious, It is quite unnecessary for me to address this as the existence of ex gays proves that homosexuality is far from innate. That being said I will address it from a slightly different angle to be sure homosexuality is not innate: "Homosexuality is not purely genetic...environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay...I don't think we will ever predict who will be gay" (Mitchell, 1995) When Hamer's study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be nonsignificant. Rice et al concluded: "It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28" (Rice et al, 1999, p.667). This consequently disputes your biology theory as well. Biology-Dr. Simon LeVay an admitted homosexual, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. "The INAH 3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior....Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later." Indeed, in commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states: "These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain" (Breedlove, 1997, p. 801). LeVay made an interesting observation about the emphasis on the biology of homosexuality. He noted, "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights" (1996, p. 282) The third study, which was conducted by Bailey and Pillard, focused on twins. They found a concordance (both twins homosexual) rate of 52% among identical twins, 22% among non-identical twins and a 9.2 % among non-twins. This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual (1991). Prominent research teams Byne and Parsons, and also Friedman and Downey, each concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where "temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges" Are homosexual attractions innate? There is no support in the scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically determined. C.Conclusion- As your own conclusion says there is no way to conclusively tell what causes homosexuality, which means it has not been proven to be biological, psychology is a factor, and it is likely at least partly choice. In reviewing the research, Satinover reported a 52% success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction. (Satinover, 1996, p. 186). Masters and Johnson, the famed sex researchers, reported 65% success rate after a five-year follow-up (Schwartz and Masters, 1984, pp. 173-184). Other professionals report success rates ranging from 30% to 70%. An article in the Monitor on Psychology reviewed the research of Dr. Lisa Diamond, a professor at the University of Utah and concluded that "Sexual identity is far from fixed in women who aren't exclusively heterosexual"(Murray, 2000, p. 15; Diamond, 2000). What is more intriguing is the research of Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist and researcher at Columbia University. Dr. Spitzer was the architect of the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual, a gay affirmative psychiatrist , and a long time supporter of gay rights. His current study focused on whether or not individuals can change. His conclusions are: "I am convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual...I think that's news...I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained" I hope you don't mind I listed actual sources for the above research rather than the website that host's it so there would be no confusion. Sources: Psychologist and Biologist James D. Weinrich www.harvard.edu/docs/animalmyth.html Behavior, genetics expert,Dr. Thomas Bouchard Dr. Simon Levay-Geneticist Nimmons, 1994, p. 64 Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley Bailey and Pillard Byne and Parsons, 1993; Friedman and Downey, 1993 Schwartz and Masters, 1984, pp. 173-184 Dr. Lisa Diamond, a professor at the University of Utah Dr. Robert L. Spitzer Columbia University I thank my opponent for an interesting debate, although respectfully, you have failed to prove homosexuality is not a choice, failed to meet your bop, and have, in fact, increased my belief that it is indeed a choice. At best the science is inconclusive, and at worst lacking in representativeness.