Homosexuality is a Choice

Thanks, TMC. Since Pro has failed to follow the structure of this debate (he was only supposed to defend his case, but he made remarks regarding mine) I will also alter my round's structure. I may put Pro's comments in italics. ROUND TWOA. AnimalsPro argues that we cannot assess exactly why animals engage in homosexual activity. I have two responses: (1) Pro gives us little evidence, and (2) we can make reasonable inferences. Pro claims that "most biologists" think that homosexual animals are just asserting dominance, but where is the evidence? He gives us no linked sources in this round, and without links, I cannot assess the quality and scope of the sources' claims. Consequently, such sources ought not to be evaluated. As to the second point, we can reasonably infer that at least some animals aren't doing it to assert dominance. Please refer back to the examples of "Rams" I cited earlier. They "form exclusively male-to-male pair bonds, forsaking all contact with the female ewes. " If the rams were asserting dominance, presumably to win over females, why would they abandon all contact with ewes? It makes no sense. Logically, we can explain this behavior through homosexuality, but not through Pro's explanation. As for the moral implications argument Pro advances, this is a bit absurd. Just because 1 or 2 animals do X, does not mean that X is normal for all species. Obviously, though, since homosexual exist in humanity, we can look at other species that display homosexual characteristics to learn more about ourselves. It is akin to deconstructing our evolutionary history--we can gain insights into our own behaviors through an analysis of related species. That's all I am suggesting in this argument--Pro is blowing my points way out of proportion. Pro writes that "animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another. " Let's rebut this notion with the example of dogs. Their olfactory sense is so powerful it can discriminate between minute variances in odor. [1] No dog is going to confuse me with my best friend, because it's amazing sense of smell will distinguish between the two of us. Pro also fails to relate some of his points here back to the resolution. Regarding distinction, again, we can make reasonable inferences, and regarding science, my opponent's arguments are plagiarized from this source. [2] Pro has failed to properly cite this source (or to site it at all in the round in which he quoted it) and this constitutes a severe violation of conduct sufficient to allow votes on this debate, at least in my opinion. But, as to the argument itself, what Bouchard is saying is that as species develop, inherited traits may be heightened or suppressed within the species via non-genetic factors. This (a) does not mean that homosexuality isn't biological, (b) does not mean that homosexuality isn't influenced by genes, and (c) does not show that homosexuality is a choice. We can still use patterns found in animals to extrapolate, logically, whether homosexuality is a choice; if animals are homosexual, it is likely that humans who are also homosexual haven't chosen to be so. B. BehaviorPro simply claims that the presence of ex-gays refutes this point sufficiently. I have already addressed how unlikely it is that there are any true "ex-gays" out there, esp. as many "ex-gays" have admitted they were always gay, and esp. as many of the conversion center leaders have conceded that their programs fail. Frankly, Pro has done next to nothing to beat back the voluminous psychological evidence I've brought to the table in this debate. C. BiologyI would point out that, since Pro provides no links, I cannot verify the accuracy, validity, or scope of any of the studies Pro cites. Linked sources should thus be viewed as more credible than unlinked sources. The Rice et al study does implicitly suggest that XQ28 does have some effect on whether a person is gay or not, despite its conclusion that it did not have a large effect. Simon LeVay discussed what he did not find--simply because he did not find it does not mean that it does not exist. Moreover, both Rice, Breedlove, and LeVay focus wholly on genetics and brain centers, not on the other possible biological roots for homosexuality. Pro then cites a study which shows that identical twins were 52% concordant regarding their orientation, versus only 22% among non-twin siblings. This is proof positive that genetic or in utero factors influence whether someone is homosexual or not. If twins are 30% more likely to be gay than non-twins (twins have identical genes and lived in identical conditions in the womb), then it is logical to assume biological factors are at play in determining orientation. I find it funny that in round three Pro critiques my sources for being old, and of the seven studies/sources he cites up to this point, his most recent is from 1999--almost 16 years ago. Regarding the Diamond evidence, I am not claiming that orientation is fixed--again, the fact that sexuality is fluid does not imply that sexuality is chosen. Moreover, since Pro's evidence only focus on genetics, brain structure, and twin studies, his evidence does NOT rebut my arguments about epi-marks, chromosome linkage, pheromone-based sexual responses, and birth order. Extend all of these DROPPED points. ROUND THREECon began this debate and therefore is responsible for proving without a doubt that homosexuality is NOT a choiceThe instigator is not necessarily the one who bears the BOP, otherwise we could fall into such logical chasms as having to prove a negative. Logically and historically, the BOP rests on the individual making the positive claim. In this case, Pro is making the claim that "Homosexuality is a Choice. " Therefore, the BOP certainly does rest on him. [3]My opponent has attempted a. .. dishonesty [sic] tactic by listing his sources by numbering them 1-14(As if more sources is equal to a better argument). There is a fundamental problem with this as if one examines the list you will find that he has used the same source on several occasions and yet has given the same source different numbers to make it seem as if he had this huge number of sources when he in fact only had a few which I will further scrutinize. My sources are numbered as they are not to make it seem as if I have many, but rather so that readers can know which source corresponds to which argument. If readers wish to know what source I am quoting in argument X, they need only refer to the bracketed number (e. g. [Z]) to see which source it is. Moreover, none of the links I provided in any round were duplicates. Each web page should be cited separately--this is standard not just on DDO, but also in such manuals as MLA Style Guide and Chicago-Turabian Style Guide. Wikipedia is not a viable sourceWikipedia is about as accurate as the venerated Encyclopedia Britannica [4], and most errors are fixed by the community almost instantly. As for the Harvard link which my opponent claims he has used to his benefit; he clearly did not look at the date of the information gathered (1985). The only Harvard source I cite is from 2011, not 1985, so I have no clue what Pro's beef with it is. In fact, the Harvard source I cite was actually first used by Pro, so Pro must believe that it is a credible source. [5]Sexuality is not just the act but the attraction, which means it is based on how we identify ourselves. Homosexuality is attraction. I can identify as straight, but if I'm only attracted to guys, I'm homosexual. This definition is widely accepted, and can be independently verified in such reputable dictionaries as Merriam Webster and American Heritage. I think my opponent my be conflating gender identity with attraction; the two are not the same. The APA (one of my opponents most heavily relied upon sources) is not a reliable source because the DSM has been proven to lack validity and credibility. No list of medical disorders is ever going to be 100% comprehensive or correct. As our medical knowledge changes, the list will be refined. If we are holding the DSM to absolute accuracy, that would be a ridiculous standard. Moreover, what Pro's evidence is saying is that clinicians disagree on how to diagnose an illness--not about whether or not that illness exists. These types of disagreements are frequent in any medical field, and "tweaking" diagnostic criteria is hardly evidence of rampant inaccuracies or errors. By and large, the APA is a highly respected body who is looked to by the entire psychological community, and I see little reason to doubt it's findings. Besides, I have not cited the DSM, but have cited other analyses and studies from the APA. So, even if the DSM is faulty, how does it have any bearing on the evidence I presented? There is some evidence for PREDISPOSITION, which is not the same as predeterminism. If I am predisposed to something genetically, my choice is reduced. In fact, if I am sufficiently predisposed to something, non-chosen environmental factors could be the deciding factor; so, choice still could be absent. Without both the act and the attraction there is no homosexuality. .. Desire does not equal homosexuality. Homosexuality is just the attraction. [6, 7] I can be homosexual and a virgin. The first source then, is irrelevant to the debate, and the second source is turned. Pro ignores the underlying logic I use in my "Food for Thought" section; extend my points. . SOURCES1 - . http://www.pbs.org...2 - . http://www.firstthings.com...3 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...4 - . http://news.cnet.com...5 - . http://isites.harvard.edu...6 - . http://simple.wikipedia.org...7 - . http://www.britannica.com...Please,