Being a homosexual (practicing, or no) is not a choice.

This is a very sensitive subject to many, and I appreciate that she has not taken many of my arguments as personal attacks against her or her beliefs (which my arguments are not). I will respond to the arguments in my opponent's second constructive, and introduce my own arguments and evidence as necessary. My opponent first counters that homosexuality does occur in nature. She cites an article published in Medical Science News on October 23, 2006 entitled "1,500 animals species practice homosexuality" (available: . http://www.news-medical.net...) that discusses the prevalence of homosexuality in nature. She discusses the particular example of male lions having sex with one another in order to ensure loyalty. This, however, is evidence only of homosexual behavior, not of homosexuality as a practice. I turn to two separate studies, both available in Luiz Sï¿½rgio Solimeo's article "The Animal Homosexuality Myth" (available: . http://www.narth.com...). The first, from Simon LeVay's book Queer Science: "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity. " The second, from University of Navarre, Spain, Bioethics Professor Dr. Antonio Pardo's article ""Aspectos mï¿½dicos de la homosexualidad" (trans: Medical Aspects of Homosexuality), appearing in Nuestro Tiempo (trans: Our Time) magazine: "Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals. .. . For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction. " Thus, my opponent has introduced evidence establishing that homosexual behavior occurs in nature, but not homosexuality as it is practiced among humans. The only explanation, therefore, can be that homosexuality is a choice made by man, who, because of his superiority over the animal kingdom, may make choices that go against nature. My opponent's third paragraph concedes this point: ". .. people and animals are more than just robots designed to follow the constraints of their bodies. .. " The "constraints of their bodies" that she refers to is homosexuality. If people and animals are constrained to only be attracted to members of the opposite sex, then it must be a choice made against nature to be homosexual. In my previous constructive, I asked my opponent to clarify her definition of homosexuality. She defines it as the 'homosexual mindset', and I understand much better now the reasoning of her arguments. I thank her for clarifying that point. My opponent also rewords her 'hermaphrodite' argument, which I believe I also understand much better now (I do appreciate that debating online, without speaking to one another directly, can complicate the discussion process). She contends that simply because something goes against nature or the norm does not automatically make it a choice. This argument, however, assumes that what is "natural" and what is "normal" are the same thing. Being a hermaphrodite certainly is not normal; the vast majority of individuals have either male or female genitalia. It is however, natural. No external interference is required in order to produce a hermaphrodite. There are various causes for hermaphroditism, which are described in Wikipedia's article on "Intersexuality" (available: . http://en.wikipedia.org...), all of which occur naturally. We can conclude, therefore, that hermaphroditism is natural, just as is homosexual behavior. However, homosexuality - the 'gay mindset' - is not natural, and can only be achieved, therefore, by choice. My opponent dismisses my "lifestyle" argument by reminding me of her redefinition of homosexuality as the 'gay mindset', and not necessarily the 'gay lifestyle'. I will not refute that contention; I introduced the 'lifestyle' argument under my understanding of her definition of "homosexuality". I see now that understanding was wrong. My opponent says: ". .. I think you would be hard-pressed to find a straight person that claims to desire gay sex without considering themselves gay. " It is actually not as hard as one would think. An August 3, 2003 New York Times article entitled "Double Lives On The Down Low" by Benoit Denizet-Lewis (available: . http://query.nytimes.com...) discusses a culture predominant mostly among African-Americans called the "down -low", in which African-American men lead normal lives with wives and children, but enjoy sex with men. These men, however, do not consider themselves to be homosexual. What distinguishes gay men from men on the down-low is their choice to accept the homosexual mind frame. The fact that my opponent is unable to personally find herself able to choose to be a homosexual is a personal opinion, but that does not mean that others are not able to make the same choice. I believe I miscommunicated my argument regarding the 'gay lifestyle'. First off, I was confused by my opponent's interpretation of "homosexuality". My argument, therefore, may not be topical given her definition. Secondly, it is difficult for me to prove that someone has a homosexual mindset without some evidence of that mindset. The best way to prove that mindset is by proving their lifestyle. An individual's choice in lifestyle is an indication of their choice in mindset. If an individual chooses to vote Republican, for example, it is indicative of their choice in beliefs (whatever Republican believes those may be). Likewise, if an individual chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, it is indicative of their choice to be homosexual. As in my last constructive, I would like to reiterate that the arguments I have expressed here do not necessarily reflect my own personal opinions. Within the confines of this discussion, however, my opponent has again failed to prove that homosexuality is not a choice, and I therefore urge a negative in this debate. I thank my opponent again for her participation, and look forward to the final round of debate. I would, however, ask her to please refrain from introducing new arguments in her final constructive. That is not to say that she may not refute arguments using new lines of reasoning, but rather that she should not submit an entirely new argument that has no basis in any of the prior constructive submissions. I would instead ask that our final constructives focus on summarizing the main arguments in the round for the voters at the end of the debate.