Homosexuality cannot be changed and is healthy.

If I can negate Pro's contentions or demonstrate their irrelevance, then I have won this debate as Pro would not have fulfilled his burden of establishing the resolution to be true. 1. Con's first argument is that without being exposed to homosexuality, one could not become a homosexual. Unfortunately for my opponent there is both biological and anecdotal evidence proving contrary. Consider children who are sheltered and not taught about sex and/or hormones. Does that mean they will not experience sexual urges just because they have not learned about it formally? Of course not. Toddlers masturbate as a reaction to their sexual urges, even if they have not been exposed to masturbation [1]. The same applies to homosexuals. 2. Next Con states that if homosexuality were genetic, there would be more homosexuals. About 5% of the population identify as homosexual [2]. However, Pro's logic proves to be invalid considering the following example: Schizophrenic people account for just 1.1% of the population [3], and yet schizophrenia is proven to be genetic [4]. If Pro's logic is correct, schizophrenia would not be a genetic disorder because so few people have it. However that is clearly absurd considering most diseases are genetic, and most diseases affect the minority of people. Just because a minority is affected by something does not mean the cause is not genetic. Another example I would like to present is Harry Benjamin's Syndrome. This is considered a genetic disorder [5]. "HBS is a congenital intersex condition that develops before birth, involving the differentiation between male and female. It is believed that every 1 out of 500 is born with this condition. Therefore, a girl with Harry Benjamin's Syndrome would have a female brain's sex but her genitals would appear male. The boys born under this condition have female genitalia even thought their brains are male. So far, it is impossible to diagnose this condition at the moment of birth causing the babies to be raised in the wrong gender role" [6]. 1/500 is a pretty high statistic. As of now, DDO has 25,603 registered members. Statistically about 51 members here are being raised the wrong gender (that figure may be hard to reconcile since there are so few active members). Their genitals don't match their hormonal brain balance. Many of these people identify as gay. For instance a female with a male's brain chemistry is very likely to be attracted to another female. Why? The brain acts like a male's brain though the person has female genitalia. It has in fact been demonstrated that lesbians have very similar brains to straight men and vice versa [7]. Since sexual chemistry is derivative in the brain via hormones, it makes sense to acknowledge that people cannot choose who they are sexually attracted to. Did a teenage boy with a random erection plan or control that occurrence? I'd argue that while one can control how they react to their thoughts, they do not necessarily always demonstrate complete control over their thoughts, and Pro hasn't argued as such. If that were true, nobody would ever feel stressed out or emotional. Moreover I would like Pro and the judges to consider the following: can you control your particular sexuality? If asked to suddenly become attracted to the opposite of your current sexual preference, could you decide on a whim to switch it up and suddenly stop being attracted to one gender in particular and switch teams? It's true that some people express a preference and then wind up with another sex. However, I would argue that this person always had bisexual tendencies, or a homosexual preference but chose to suppress it for a plethora of potential reasons. Pro hasn't argued contrary, so throughout his round he hasn't proved that one's sexuality changed rather than the fact that one can simply express particular aspects of their overall sexuality at a given point in time. 3. Pro says we can change our genetics. I contend that we have no control over our genetic make-up, as it was determined by our parents before we were born [8]. Pro says disputing this would be arguing against basic science, though science is undoubtedly in my corner. Furthermore it would be irresponsible to suggest that it's my or the audience's job to sift through every one of Pro's sporadic links to find the source that allegedly confirms this. He hasn't properly cited or sourced any of his "facts," actually. Finally on this point, my opponent presents a misleading analogy between homosexuals and murderers. While one could argue that a killer kills partly on behalf of their genetics, one could also argue that an athlete plays sports partly on behalf of their genetics. So what? Genetics very likely play a role in determining sexual orientation [9] as they do most other aspects of our personality [10] -- but homosexuals need not be punished like murderers do, as homosexuals have not done anything inherently wrong or immoral. 4. Just because homosexual endeavors do not naturally produce children is not an argument in favor of sexuality being transient or unhealthy. Furthermore the world is overpopulated so I don't see why not having children naturally is either relevant or necessarily positive. In fact it can be seen as a negative, as one theory suggests that homosexuality is nature's response to the overpopulation problem [11]. Any benefits of parenting can be easily obtained by homosexuals via adoption, in vitro or other processes. 5. Pro says that homosexuals are less healthy than their heterosexual counterparts, though clearly this is a mass generalization not applicable to every individual gay person. Pro also suggests that homosexuals have a higher rate of AIDS than straight people, though by homosexual he is only referring to gay men. In fact, lesbians are the demographic with the LOWEST rate of AIDS and HIV, and they are of course homosexual [12]. Pro cannot disregard lesbians from the homosexual discussion, and these statistics simply to not apply to them. I think it's pretty obvious that unsafe sex and not particularly homosexual sex is what is inherently dangerous, thus smarter choices amongst the gay community can easily change these statistics thereby negating this point. Pro hasn't demonstrated that it was homosexuality itself as unhealthy (i.e., sex between people of the same sex). 6. Pro writes, "Also, heterosexuals have less chance of AIDS. Less chance of depression. More life expectancy." I've already argued the AIDS issue, and regarding depression, most of the depression gay people feel is in response to the bigotry, homophobia, ignorance and intolerance that causes people to treat homosexuals as if they are disgusting, unloved or defective [13]. The life expectancy statistic is directly related to the AIDS statistic. 7. Pro says lesbians are also at risk for STDs. That's true, but so are heterosexuals who engage in similar sexual practices; i.e. cunnilingus :) 8. Pro hasn't proven that rebelling against the social norm is necessarily immoral. Pro hasn't actually argued one point in favor of homosexuality being immoral other than an appeal to majority, and even that is entirely irrelevant to the resolution. So is Pro's false point about America's founding fathers [14]. 9. Religion is irrelevant to the resolution. 10. Pro repeats the reproduction argument which was already addressed. 11. The false point about homosexual discrimination is irrelevant to the resolution. 12. The false point about heterosexuals being able to "turn" homosexual is irrelevant to the resolution. I'd also like to note that an American Psychological Association research committee concluded no evidence demonstrates that "corrective (reparative) therapy" or any other attempt to change sexual orientation is effective [15]. SOURCES: http://www.debate.org...