Gays break the laws of nature.

Thank you, fremonkey6775, for allowing me to debate a very important biological issue. For the purposes of the debate, I'll assume that: - "Natural" means in line with the facts and theories of the study of biology, and - That homosexuality means sexual attraction to, or interaction with, people, (Or animals as the case may be), of the same sex. The topic of the debate, that "Gays break the laws of nature", can to my mind be interpreted in 3 ways: 1) That animals do not engage in homosexual relations, and so that humans do is unnatural. 2) That homosexuality in humans, is in no way innate or genetically predetermined, but due to environmental causes or freedom of choice. 3) That, because homosexuality is not natural, as explained in (1) and (2), it is thus immoral. Even though my opponent only explicitly states (1), I feel it pertinent to argue against all three. 1) This statement is, I believe, in contradiction with various biological studies and observations. For instance, the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum in Norway opened an exhibition presenting 51 instances of animal homosexuality from different species, the the coordinator of the display has stated that "Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them", which appears to be the scientific consensus. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... Furthermore, the Bonobo, a primate, has been observed to engage in homosexual sex, and is a matriarchal society, with lesbianism being prevalent: http://songweaver.com... Some have argued that this is due to social aggression, and so isn't innate in these animals. However, some animals have been shown to stay with their homosexual partners even when given the opportunity to mate with members of the opposite sex, for instance sheep and penguins: http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, homosexuality has been simulated in fruit flies by genetic and hormonal manipulation, which shows that homosexuality in animals isn't necessarily due to social factors: http://www.sciencedaily.com... All of these findings seem to indicate that homosexuality is a force in the animal kingdom, even amongst animals that obviously don't choose to be homosexual due to various factors such as increased aggression or mate availability. 2) There is also good evidence against this proposition. Firstly, scientists have found a correlation between homosexuality and moderate right-handedness, which is moderated by number of older brothers. Basically, gay men are more likely to be right-handed if they have no older brothers. This very strange occurrence suggests that homosexuality is correlated to some kind of prenatal cause, or as is stated by Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines Ontario, homosexuality is probably "...a result of genes, maternal hormones during pregnancy, or maternal immune system functioning during conception." Thus, homosexuality isn't a matter of choice for many homosexuals, but an innate predisposition. http://www.sciencedaily.com... Furthermore, a part of the brain called the INAH-3 was shown to be smaller in gay men than heterosexual men: http://www.sciencemag.org... Finally, the brains of lesbian women have been shown to respond differently to the hormones EST, (Found in female urine), and AND, (Found in male armpit secretions): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... To believe that homosexuality is due to choice or environmental factors is to believe that you can make certain parts of your brain shrink at will. 3) This is a statement that I disagree with more on a philosophical basis. If you didn't intend on pursuing this kind of topic, firemonkey, then feel free to ignore it or say that it isn't part of the debate, and I'll focus only on the first two points. That something is unnatural implies that it is immoral seems to me to be a strange and somewhat hasty generalization. Because, many things that are unnatural are accepted by most people as moral, or at least not normally immoral. One instance would be playing chess. No animal other than humans has ever played such a complicated game that used the abstract reasoning that chess players do. So, it seems, if homosexuality is to be deemed immoral it must be based on more than its alleged non-naturalness. Thank you.