Sexuality is a choice

You mean round three (officially) :) First and formost, the story about the girl who was neglected by her father which shaped her ideas of love, that girl is a very dear friend of mine. I won't give resources on that because I feel I should protect her identity. Her story, regardless of resources provided, proves my point. Even if it were hypothetical (which at this point surely would seem so), proves my point The study about the man who was in an arrianged sexual encounter with an older gay man was in a report entitled Born WHAT Way? By Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute. the full article: http://www.biblebelievers.com... This is where I got many of my statistics. And given that they are from a Christian orginization, may seem biased, but let's look at the stats given by the Kinsey Institute and the Kinsey report. First we must understand that Alfred Kinsey was not a Christian, like most scientists, so he clearly had nothing to gain from these reports. Why would a Christian orginization publish some findings of some one who was not Christian? To make their beliefs seem more credible. If someone who was not a Christian found these evidences in people, how can anyone say that it is biased? Also there is a paragraph or two about Sigmund Freud and Richard Isay. Both claimed to have homosexual urges. Sigmund Freud went through a self psychiatric analysis and found that he had greater independence that resulted from him overcoming his homosexuality (in a 1910 letter to Sandor Ferenzci which I was unable to locate the exact letter). Isay on the other hand decided it was best to embrace his homosexuality, pronounce it natural, and divorce his wife and start living as a gay man. the name Sigmund Freud is more recognizable than that of Richard Isay, so how can one refute sigmund freud's claim? The usage of the german child who wears dresses is a good argument and very interesting. hat's off to you for that. however Gender Identity Disorder is in fact a psychological ailment. It is found in the DSM-IV and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel for Mental Disorders (4th ed). It has been approved by the American Psychiatric Association as a real mental disorder. In saying that I am coming out as saying that I may be inclined to agree with my opp that this could very well be a test from God. On the other hand, that would mean we would both have to catagorize homosexuality as a mental disorder. Is that really fair though? And even if it were catagorized as a mental disorder, there are causes for mental disorders of all kinds. Sometimes they are chemical inbalances, other times like PTSD, caused by events. If homosexuality were not a choice, then it would have to be a mental disorder, most likely akin to PTSD. I would have to ask my opp and any other proponent of sexuality being inborn, if they are comfortable calling it a mental disorder? My opponent basically agreed that there are societal and environmental factors in which sway one to come out and say they were born gay. this is a concession and point goes to me As I stated before I could agree that Homosexuality, like many other temptations, are a test from God. What this boils down to is the temptation and whether or not we choose to fall into that temptation. Therefore, making it even more evident that homosexuality, like all temptation, is a choice. Will my opp please concede? I did not follow the order in which my opp attempted to refute my claims. So in response to the Human Genome Project argument, she says that male homosexuality MAY be inborn, while female homosexuality is not. The word "may" that she used means this is still inconclusive. So the question now is which side do we err on? If it's inconclusive how can so many people be sure it's not a choice. My opponent clearly did not understand the argument about the link between homosexuality and abuse. I never stated that homosexuality was the only response to abuse. Please concede this point The pop culture reference I made was a very good one and my opps response was very good. Accepting yourself for who you are is certainly not a bad thing. I fully support that. However the message Gaga sends is vastly different than reality. She says accept your homosexuality because you were born that way, not accept your homosexuality because you chose to be this way. And while I would normally be inclined to agree with my opp that Lady Gaga's overall message is to just be happy with who you are no matter what the problem you face is, I have Spina Bifida. It is a physical defect which you are actually born with. I have never seen Gaga throw any support towards the Spina Bifida Association or any other cause other than the LGTB groups. This clearly shows that Gaga is 100% for the gay community (not a bad thing) and her message of being ok with who you are is for the gay community only. Her messages are 100% pro-gay and promote the belief that you are born gay (if you are infact gay) Finally my opp addressed suicides among gay youth. She said if one was bullied for being gay and it was a choice, why cant they turn away from it? The answer is simple. Who said they wanted to? There are evidences which I have provided that state that you CAN turn from it. But the kids who are bullied may not want to turn from being gay. This is evidenced by a kid with glasses who gets called four eyes and is teased for wearing glasses. He has the option at some point to get contacts does he not? Or a red haired kid who is teased for having red hair. He could just dye it couldn't he. A fat person (which is almost always a choice) gets teased for being fat. He has the option to work out, change is eating habits and lose weight. Bullying is universal and not just limited to gay people. The overall bottom line to this arguement is people get bullied for various reasons and more often than not there is the choice to change a behavior.