Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way'

“Also, a lot of footnotes here, did you just copy and paste this stuff? ” No I did not. Twin studies My opponent’s first criticism is that twin studies recruit biased samples, but he obviously is unaware of the methodologies used. The low (11%) concordance rates have been derived from large twin registers (random) or large randomized surveys. Thus, the low number of genetic influence is derived from methodologically sound datasets which are representative of the population [1]. Further, his argument states twins with high concordance rates (one twin is gay gets his other gay twin to join) actually helps my case. If this was true, then these studies would overestimate genetics, not underestimate it. Thus, assuming his criticism is correct, then he proves homosexuality is *less* than 11% genetic. His argument in relation to hormones is incorrect. Fraternal twins are formed due to different hormones—but not for the reason you think. They are that way because they have separate placentas which provides them with different hormones. What also must be noted is fraternal twins are also different genetically. They are more like a normal brother and sister than twins (separate placenta, separate sperm, separate egg) [2]. The exact effect my opponent claims will prove his point (hormones/placenta effect) has actually been researched in this field. It actually suggests twin studies overestimate the genetic effects. When this is accounted for, genetic influence falls about 15%. So using the low concordance rate studies, the genetic influence is zero. Using studies with higher concordance, male homosexuality is only 7% genetic (personal calculation; official estimate 18%) and 22% for women (obtained same results) [1]. Thus, homosexuality when hormones are accounted for means the genetic influence is weak. My opponent essentially loses the debate with his analogy. I said I would argue environmental factors cause it—however, I only have to prove it is not inborn. So, even if we assume a ‘dinosaur’ caused it, I would win the debate. It also must be noted the studies I cited often could isolate the environmental variables—they find they cause over half (54-84% of homosexuality. Thus, these studies, again, control for my opponent’s criticism. I even mentioned that last round. Thus, this analogy is preempted. Both of my opponent’s arguments are either (1) incorrect or (2) actually support my case and have been considered by the studies cited. Gay Parents My opponent must have skimmed what I wrote. He again levels the argument the studies rely upon weak non-random datasets, but ignores the study last round (Cameron and Cameron 1996) which used a random dataset—this means any biases my opponent claims are incorrect. Further, I assume my opponent obtains his criticism from this FRC link [3], which he cites and makes the same claim. The link cites the Regnerus study. What is also interesting is that the link notes “If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female” [emphasis added]. Thus the source he cites actually supports my position—studies using random samples find gay parents are more likely to raise gay children. Again, my opponent makes an argument which benefits me and is incorrect based upon the data cited. My opponent claims it is possible gay parents may be related to their children—thus they could have passed a gay gene. This is an interesting argument. However, it is unlikely. For example, gay men generally are unrelated to the child they obtain. The Regnerus study noted how many children of gay families come from dissolved heterosexual unions. However, men usually lose custody battles [4]. Thus, as the studies (e. g. Cameron and Cameron) use mainly male samples, the possible genetic effect my opponent suggests is negligible. Further, children share about 50% of their genes with each parent. Which means if it was a genetic trait, we would see the inheritance rate of lesbian mothers to be about 50%. However, it is usually under that (20-40%). Thus, we can assume the higher rates of non-heterosexuality are due to other factors. Reorientation therapy My opponent’s main argument is twofold: The APA dislikes it The studies are flawed His second point—the studies are flawed—have essentially been preempted. The studies I cited often had large (200+) sample sizes and found heterosexual functioning increased after therapy. The fact the best studies find the benefit from these practices suggest I am correct. Arguably the best research came out in 2011. Previous studies were not longitudinal—in other words, they did not track their patients over time. In fact, the main criticism of the APA was that studies which claimed change occurred was they did not follow their patients over time. The study—which followed their patients over 7 years—found change was in fact possible. To quote the study, therapy allowed homosexuals to experience “significant change away from homosexual orientation. ” [5] Pro claims if it was not a disease doctors would be able to distinguish them. But this is an odd argument. Until properly diagnosed, someone with cancer may look exactly like you and me. A doctor can easily diagnose homosexuality by asking. So just because they look the same does not mean anything. And saying I must call it a disease is just an emotional ploy. I am not willing to make the scientific statement definitively that it is a disease—I am only willing to say therapy works. Readers can interpret those results however they like. But this debate is not that homosexuality is a disorder, but whether or not they are born that way. If it is mutable via therapy, we can assume they are not born that way. Whether or not we choose to call it a disease is irrelevant. Now it must be noted the APA task force did no research on its own—it merely reviewed the evidence. Although the APA claims the research is flawed, this is likely not true as I have cited significant work [5] which has noted the use of strong methodology obtains the same result. IT must be noted the study was presented to the APA after their most recent report, so it could not have been included in their results. Further, the APA did not apply its standards for the research consistently. Often, they would cite studies claiming therapy works and call it strong evidence that therapy is ineffective. However, studies claiming it worked using similar methodology would be called flawed. This means the APA report had some sort of bias in which it would exclude studies finding a positive effect and would accept studies claiming a negative effect, regardless of their methodological strengths [6]. The APA report also excluded 5 highly qualified experts from authoring the report, and instead chose authors with strong liberal biases. Often, these authors write for pro-gay journals, or are even gay themselves [7]. Thus, the APA report is flawed as it does not include the newest research proving change and excludes many valid studies which undermine its conclusions for no apparent reason. The study also prevented many honest scholars from authoring the report and instead opted for people personally involved in the issue—never the way to go if your goal is nonpartisanship. Thus, the point that reorientation therapy works has been upheld. Animals The claim animals—like geese and ducks—are applicable to humans is faulty. It also must be noted he ignored the example of the goat, which proves homosexuality is genetic. The strongest piece of evidence my opponent provides is that bonobos are bisexual. However, the homosexual behavior of the booboos has been found to not be due to homosexual orientation, but other reasons. The reason bonobos have gay sex is to avoid conflict. In fact, many pro-gay researchers have come to the conclusion that animals really aren’t gay, but engage in homosexual behavior due to different environmental settings, not genes [8]. My opponent claims we are 80% related to mice—this is correct. But this does not mean our sexualities will be the same. Most monkeys share over 90% of their genes with us, but how we engage in sexual behavior is different. Many monkeys are polyamorous, whereas others are monogamous. Humans, based on our characteristics, seem to be neither (a mix of both) [9]. So even though we are closely related, sexuality seems to differ significantly species to species. ____ I have proven (1) Twin studies show homosexuality is mostly environmental, (2) gay parents produce an environment causing homosexuality, (3) reorientation therapy works based upon the balance of evidence, and (4) animals are likely not a good example if you want to prove being gay is innate. My opponent has one round to refute all of these. It also must be noted he hardly makes a positive case. Unless he can identify studies proving a gay gene, prenatal hormonal influence, or epigenetics as a cause he loses the debate. 1. . http://www.mygenes.co.nz... 2. . http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... 3. . http://www.frc.org... 4. . http://www.christianet.com... 5. . http://exgaystudy.org... 6. . http://www.narth.org... 7. . http://www.narth.org... 8. . http://www.narth.org... 9. . http://www.wsj.com...