Question: Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

Sexual orientation is determined at birth. Sexual orientation IS determined at birth. How? You can easily see whether a baby has female or male genitals. A penis is for the males and a vagina is for the females. Simple.

Sexual orientation is determined at birth. Pro's argument about the female and male genitals seems to be a non-sequitur. Read what one is here.[1] The genitals have little to do with sexual orientation. While the genitals determine biological sex and biological sex correlates with sexual orientation, biological sex is not the cause of sexual orientation. If sexual orientation was determined at birth, then all identical twins would have the same sexual orientation. However, it is not the case that when one twin is homosexual, the other twin is also homosexual. As has been established by several studies on this matter, not 100% of twins have the same sexual orientation as the other, in fact it varies from as little as 20% of twins sharing the same sexual orientation, to as much as 60% in some studies.[3, pg 271] Source:[1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;[2] https://genepi.qimr.edu.au...;

People are Born Gay People are born with their sexual orientation already determined, just like they are born tall or short, it may not be apparent at birth but it is there.

Sexual Orientation is a choice. Sexual orientation is something that people are born with.

Sexual Orientation is a choice Now onto the argument. Gregory Herek, a UC Davis psychology professor, claimed that 95 percent of the self-identified gay men in a study he conducted, and 80 to 90 percent of the lesbians, believed they had little or no choice in their sexual orientation. [1] Gays and lesbians commonly have heterosexual partners at some point in life - often due to youthful uncertainty and social pressures - but, most people ultimately can define their own sexuality. Another report; delivered by Jerome Goldstein, M. D. , a board-certified medical neurologist and Director of the San Francisco Clinical Research Center, states that Sexual orientation is neurobiological and is set at birth. [2] Goldstein later goes on to say that brains of people of different sexual orientations " gay, straight, and bisexual " work in different ways. most people do not seem to recall ever making such a choice. While this does not prove that it is not a choice, the fact that people seem unable to point to making such a choice does provide support for the claim that it is not a matter of choice. Do heterosexual men and women think about their orientation, or does it just come "naturally"? Personally, I have no awareness that I chose to be straight. I also have no awareness of selecting my preferences in regards to the type of women I am attracted to. For example, I have a general preference towards woman with blonde hair. However, that does not seem to be something I selected. I cannot think of consciously deciding that I would find dark hair somewhat more appealing than lighter hair, I just do. If orientation were a choice, then a straight person should be able to choose to be gay and vice versa. A person can, obviously, test this by trying to switch his/her orientation. If my opponent/viewers of this debate are heterosexual, I urge you to give it a try and see if you can change preference. . It does not come natural. Another argument would be that if sexual preference is a matter of choice, it does seem a little bit odd that people would not decide to be heterosexual when people were (and still to this day are) persecuted and even killed for being homosexuals. It would make no sense to endure such treatment when a person could simply decide to not be that way. Of course, this argument is not decisive. .. but it is a point to be noticed. In my opinion, sexual orientation is innate but latent emerging slowly as the person develops. This is my opening argument, I await and look forward to seeing what my opponent has to say. [1] . http://www.sfgate.com... [2] . http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...

Sexiality Isn't a Choice Sexuality is determined at birth, but it may take a while for one to figure it out. As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are. They could even be bisexual. Here I speak from personal existence. I grew up in a conservative Christian household, so anything other than heterosexuality was frowned upon. I hit the teenage years when I begin to learn things about myself, and I began to question my sexuality. I simply realised, "hey, I don't really like anyome" and go to talking with some friends and I figured out that I'm asexual. Did I choose to be this way? No. Did my environment influence me? No. I was asexual at birth, but only recently realised it.

born a way The only people who ever argue that you aren't born gay, but get 'seduced' into the lifestyle are people who say they are straight. Since they aren't gay, how do they have the first clue what is going on inside the head of a gay person? How did straight people become the experts on gayness? People can be born gay. I think a lot of new research has suggested that sexual orientation can be influenced by hormones the fetus is exposed to during pregnancy. Sexual attraction is something innate and something you cannot change, even if you wanted to. It's determined early in our development.

Sexual Orientation is a choice "As we see laws and rules regarding homo-sexuality change around the world, many people may feel like they would be more accepted if they changed sexual orientation." Do you think that this could be because they were afraid of being persecuted before hand? In Iran the threat of hanging may lessen homosexual activity, but there are still plenty of gays. (Some are forced into a sex-change because, curiously, transsexualism is more acceptable to the State.) There is a tribe in the New Guinea highlands called the 'sambia', where the practice (until recently) was for younger boys to be isolated from all female company and to fellate older boys in order to ingest their virility. The early teens were spent performing fellatio and the later teens being fellated. If any cultural pressure was going to create homosexuality surely this would be it - only it didn't. Come adulthood, most Sambia males emerged as married heterosexuals - with only around 5% of "backsliders" continuing to seek boys to fellate them (Herdt, 1981). This is much the same as the proportion of gay males in Western society. "Another example is life experiences. Many people that are "born" straight may feel confused if they grow up seeing mostly straight people, then go out on their own and see gay couples." One of the first clues that people are born rather than made gay is that sex role behaviour, interests, toy and play preferences that relate to adult sex orientation can be observed from the earliest years. Some girls are described as "tomboys" and boys identified as 'sissies' when very young, usually by the age of 3. This is technically known as childhood gender nonconformity and it is strongly predictive of homosexuality in adulthood (Lippa, 2008). About 75% of CGN children grow up to be gay or lesbian. This would seem to place the origins of sex orientation much earlier than any supposed incidents of seduction and contagion in the early teens. There are actually differences in the anatomy of the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Where there are characteristic differences between male and female brains, these are often reversed in gay men and women. For example, LeVay (1991) found that a hypothalamic nucleus concerned with sexual behaviour (INAH-3), was smaller in gay men than straight men (indeed, more like that of women). Part of the conduit linking the left and right sides of the brain (the corpus callosum) is larger in homosexual men and straight women (Witelson et al, 2008). The brains of straight men and lesbians are larger in the right hemisphere than the left, but in gay men and straight women the two sides are symmetrical.). The amygdala, a mid-brain area important for emotional learning seems to be wired for a greater fight-flight response in straight men and lesbians than gay men and straight women (Savic & Lindstrom, 2008). Ponsetti et al (2007) found less gray matter in the perirhinal cortex in lesbians compared with straight women but no comparable differences between gay and straight men. [1] In regards to my opponents point that our parents have an affect on sexual orientation, I'd just like to place this link here to be observed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I personally have a slight doubt that this father never gave off the opinion that he accepted homosexuality. it is clear that sex orientation is embedded within a bio-psychological context that goes beyond the simple question of who or what turns us on. It is a fundamental part of our nature that is not easily tilted by social events during development. Being raised by homosexual parents does not alter a child 's sexuality and those who fear their son can be initiated into homosexuality by an encounter with a paedophile priest or scoutmaster may sleep easily. [2] Recognition of the inborn nature of sexual orientation may underlie increasing acceptance of homosexuality in Western countries. [1] http://www.gresham.ac.uk... [2] Wilson, G.D. & Rahman, Q. Born Gay: The psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen, 2005.

Sexiality Isn't a Choice "You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are." This is silly statement. One does not normally realise their sexuality immediately. It's set in stone at birth, but it may take a while to figure it out. Thank you for debating me. This was a good one.

Sexual Orientation is a choice After reading popular opinion, I feel like I'm arguing the tough side here, but I WILL PREVAIL. Before I continue the debate I want to make sure everyone that might read this debate understands that I have nothing against homo-sexual people, I simply am participating in this debate out of opinion. On to the debate. I believe that sexual orientation is a choice, because of three key points: the way people are raised, what they experience in life, and what they choose to become. My first point is the ways we are raised. Every experience that we go through, affects the choices we make throughout life. From the moment we are born things start changing us. One of the ways I believe sexual orientation is chosen, is through the orientation of the parents. If you are raised by to gay parents, I am sure from the moment you are adopted they will teach you that being gay/lesbian is perfectly fine, If not even normal. Another example is if you have very lenient parents. I don't mean to say that strict parents wouldn't let their children be gay, but let's say you were raised with only one parent who had to work long hours. You would be very free to make a lot of your own choices, including sexual orientation. If you are raised and grow up with gay friends and/or family you are very likely to possibly wonder about what being gay/lesbian is like. Another example is life experiences. Many people that are "born" straight may feel confused if they grow up seeing mostly straight people, then go out on their own and see gay couples. They may "experiment" with the same gender and ultimately chose to switch orientation. As we see laws and rules regarding homo-sexuality change around the world, many people may feel like they would be more accepted if they changed sexual orientation. I understand my opponents point about trying to change my sexual orientation. I am straight , and when I thought about this I realized that I would not be able to. However, I make the point that had I been raised in a different situation I may have felt confused growing up and changed orientation. My last point for this round is the ultimate decision. What sexual orientation you chose is one of the largest choices in your life. It decides how you will act socially around other genders, and your own. If you get married, sexual orientation decides who you will possibly spend the rest of your life with. I believe that there is one moment in each of our lives when we decide what sexual orientation we are. This may occur during the anytime, but is usually during the first half of our lives. Our parents may have personal opinions, and try to raise us a certain way. This usually succeeds, because we are taught during a young very impressionable time in our lives. Our parents are the only ones around during these early years and their opinions matter the most to us during that time. I urge my opponent and others who may read this to look at their opinions and decide whether some of them may have come from your parents, because I know a lot of them have for me personally. In conclusion for this round I believe that sexual orientation is a choice. Whether this choice is made by our parents in the way they raise us, or by us after confusing life experiences depends on your personal life. Back to my opponent now.

There's no such thing as being born GAY! Thank you for your timely reply. "I am NOT going to cite sources or back up material for a lot of information that I use for several different reasons; either it is common knowledge, common sense, or the information in my argument can easily be verified and looked up at any time on any search engine." No comment. The voters can judge this statement. "...yet there are lots of heterosexual men born with lower levels of testosterone so if what you are saying is accurate then these men should be GAY." The word 'lots' is a generalized word to make an argument look stronger. However, with no statistics or sources, I can not prove this fact true. It is your job as a debater to cite and make claims backed up with sources. It is like saying "there are a lot of people in the world. Search it up on a search engine." It is your job as a debater to provide these details. I have to analyze and view this comment as unproven. " Also falling in love is scientifically proven to lower levels of testosterone in males and increase testosterone in females which means that testosterone levels have intermittent highs and lows throughout the lifetime of a human being." This is true. However, my study has proven this at birth, as these would not affect the outcome of the study I provided. "First I will start by saying that there is no definitive proof that lower levels of testosterone effect sexual orientation. You never mentioned the female hormone estrogen which some females are born with lower levels of but are not Lesbians." Men and women both have testosterone, so the levels of estrogen is unnecessary into determining the sexual orientation of a person. Many sexually differentiated characteristics are organized by sex steroids, which I agree with you, but it also affects sexual orientation. Multiple sexually differentiated behavioral, and physiological traits are significantly different in homosexual and heterosexual people. Some of these traits are known to be organized by prenatal steroids, including testosterone. These differences suggest that homosexual subjects were exposed to endocrine conditions during development.[1] Testosterone is a steroid hormone responsible for sexual orientation. In addition, my opponent misread my argument, as I said when the male fetus receives too little testosterone, it causes the sexual orientation. The study I provided was only studied over males. I did not imply females get to choose. It was a stretched assumption made by my opponent. "...why have none of these athletes who habitually have taken this supplement have displayed any homosexual-like behavior or characteristics in any way what-so-ever?? Odd don't you think? And you use this estranged person called Dr. Ward? I looked him up and couldn't find a Dr. Ward only someone named Dr. Ward F. Odenwald if that's who you're talking about who did his research on HOMOSEXUALITY in 1995!! I was 9 years old!!" They have not displayed homosexual behaviors because it effects the early development of babies, and not adults. The study you did looked up was the one I did provide in my sources. It is important to remember that I provided over 5 studies, this being the most outdated one. All of them proved that sexual orientation was decided at birth. Being critical over one study, that is still reliable and even helps prove the more recent studies, is unnecessary. Providing one outdated study is better than displaying none, like my opponent. (Unless you count Wikipedia, none cited, so the information cannot be trusted nor verified.) "I'm a female and I was attracted to other females for almost 6 years and now I'M NOT!! I'm attracted to guys and have been dating them ever since!" Yes, as I stated before, people can change their viewpoints. As we argued earlier on, there is no test we can give a person after birth to determine if they are straight or homosexual. Just because of your personal experience, (needless to say only one experience), should not be the determining factor of the majority of studies. Sure, people can change their views. However, even by the confusion, (which could be from external factors), there is still the underlying factors that have been ingrained in the memory. "And you consider people who live as pedophiles, scam artists, rapists and so forth to be "ACTUAL CHOICES" and "POOR DECISIONS" yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not? LMAO Get out of here! There are STRAIGHT men who even do this for the money and solely for the money so get the heck out of here but in your biased logic it can't be an ACTUAL CHOICE or male prostitution it's an "epi-mark" no wait it's too much "Androstenedione" at birth, no no it's "lack of Testosterone"!! Wait it's in the "BRAIN"!! HAHA Which one is it?? Pick one! LMAO!!" As you can tell by my opponents choice of language, like "lmao", my opponent does not take this as a serious debate. Saying it is a poor choice for a guy being gay is judging. "... yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not?" Another person could judge for a girl wanting to do that to a guy. There is no difference, as this does not even matter into the deciding factor of if someone is born gay. My opponent only supplied her personal opinion, displayed a multitude of times throughout this debate, with rude language, a closed mind, and no sources. The answer is clear, as I supplied multiple studies (that non my opponent actually refuted with sources), and thorough explanations. My opponent simply acted as if the assumptions made on my opponents part were correct, as with no sources or statistics, cannot be proven. My sources are credible and reliable. My opponent used one personal experience. Vote pro. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Sexual Orientation is a choice. sexual orientation is not limited to the attraction felt to a specific gender, granted these forces are never stagnant and cant be measured however they can be scoped on to a scale of sorts by intensity and direction. sexual orientation can point to other spectrum like age. it is most common for people to have an attraction to adults aged 20 - 40 just as it is common to be attracted to the opposite gender. however it isn't common but accepted that there are a few people who's orientation point higher or lower than the average, some people are attracted to younger people gender regardless from the ages of 6 - 13 and some people like older people 50 - 70. sexual orientation can point at different levels of different spectra such as gender, age, inter species, intellect, masculinity, femininity and desire. these cannot be decided upon, they occur based on subconscious decisions by past experiences and not conscious decision making, or genetic inheritance.

Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology I believe that sexual orientation DOES originate from biology that is, it depends upon biological factors such as genes and hormones. I think the burden of proof is shared here.

Sexual Orientation is a choice. Um. .. ..

Sexiality Isn't a Choice You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are. I'm not able to process that through my head correctly, one because determined means strongly felt and mostly likely not to change it. So, say one's into women and all of sudden one figures themselves out due to whatever the reasoning may be, you mean to inform me that one isn't changing their mind or ways? You began to question your sexuality, right? But you also said "I simply realized hey I don't really like anyone" You're making a change. You said "As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are." No, that's one changing their ways.

born a way Let's get stuck in: -Not Born with a personality- The personality at that stage of life is unlikely to make the conscious or even unconscious decision. When was the first time you have been aroused? When you were a baby? I highly doubt that. Therefore, at the start personality can't determine sexuality immediately. - More open and loving to sexual desires- I completely agree. I have the right to indulge my fetish. -Straight people think gay people are seduced into the lifestyle- A quite large generalization. Who's to say they aren't dragged kicking and screaming, finally accepting themselves. Something we aren't all born with is the self esteem to accept immediately. Study: https://americanvision.org...

Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology I believe my point may have been misunderstood: Sexual orientation doesn't originate ONLY from biology. Sexual orientation is a multivariable dynamic process. Of course there are some biological factors that influence sexual orientation, such as: - Genetics - Epigenetics (prenatal androgen exposure) - Brain structures Biology has a great influence on sexual orientation. But not everything is as it seems. 1) A study from Denmark proves that the environment increases or decreases the proportion of heterosexual and homosexual weddings. What did this study find? - Demography: People in cities are more likely to marry a same-sex partner and less likely to marry heterosexually. - Family issues - Having no brothers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2) Younger men from the Sambia tribe fellate other adult men as a rite of passage. 3) The greeks were equally comfortable with the same-sex and that helped the formation of more "men on men" action. And finally this one, which i think isn't that good but can raise an interesting topic: 4) Homophobia is for some a latent homosexuality. By now all i can say is that homophobia correlates with homosexual arousal. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Are the people in 4 homosexual? Is homosexuality defined by conduct or is it enough if we consider physiological response? I believe sexual orientation is a social construct. So it doesn't really matter how you identify yourself, what matters is whether or not you are taking every aspect of yourself into account, or maybe just letting it be.

Being gay is a not a choice! Theories of causation for homosexuality have shifted dramatically in the past 100 years. Early psychologists believed that early childhood trauma caused homosexual feelings to develop. Specifically, Freud proposed that a weak father and an overbearing mother caused a person to "stall" in the phallic stage of childhood development. Subsequent studies have shown there is no association between any parenting style or early childhood experiences that leads to homosexuality. According to the American Psychiatric Association No specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual. Rather, all of the peer-reviewed literature is converging on the opinion that sexual orientation has a strongly genetic causation. This is not meant to imply that sexual orientation is completely determined by genes. It seems there is a complex interaction between biology and the environment to produce sexual orientation. In insects, same-gender sexual mating is induced from altering genes alone, thus indicating a 100% biological causatoin for sexual orientation in simple species. For lower mammals, like rats, same-sex mating behaviors will occur simply by putting a female "smell" on a male rat. "Lesbian" and "gay" rats, guinea pigs, sheep, zebra finches (just after hatching) and monkeys can be produced simply by altering prenatal androgen levels (natural hormones that bathe the fetus in utero) in the mother, in a process called behavioral defeminization and behavioral demasculinization. It is currently believed that In vertebrate model systems, a single [prenatal] factor-the steroid hormone testosterone-accounts for most, and perhaps all, of the known sex differences in neural structure and behavior. . . . Events triggered by testosterone masculinize the developing and adult nervous system, [to] promote male behaviors and suppress female behaviors. In the animal kingdom, same-sex mating, including life-time pairing, is not uncommon, presumably caused by mechanisms such as these. Hundreds of zoological studies have found evidence of such pairings in the wild, including, for example, the widely publicized "gay" penguins in both the New York and Berlin zoos. In humans, socialization makes the development of sexual orientation much more complex. However, the prenatal biological process is identical. While, in most instances, sexual development of the body and the brain occurs without discrepancy, in some instances prenatal androgen levels change in the middle of this process, causing a dichotomy in the affected individual. For example, in congenital adrenal hyperplasia, the early process of physical sexualization takes place as expected in the female. However, later in development, the adrenal glands begin producing excess testosterone, causing the brain to become masculinized. Almost half of this population become homosexual or bisexual. It is believed that similar processes are the cause of homosexuality in the general population. While the pro-amendment testimony is correct, that "there are no replicated studies proving that homosexuality is caused by biological factors," there is also no disagreement at this point in the medical, psychological and biological communities that biology is a crucial dimension to the process of human homosexuality, just as it is the sole cause of homosexuality in all lower species. There are no peer-reviewed studies that any longer explore purely, or even mostly, psychological causes for homosexuality in humans. The convergence of many decades of research, as well as theory, all point to, by far, biology as a primary factor in human sexual orientation. While we know that biological factors do not act as the sole cause of homosexuality, it is accepted as the primary cause. While many studies support this idea, there are no current studies that contradict this belief.

born a way Thank you for my first debate. Secondly, I'm assuming my opponent is giving arguments for sexuality as opposed to the general alternative. Sexuality is a choice because we start out with a clean slate. Are we born murders/lawyers? No. As we grow, there will always be influences around us ranging from parents to friends to associates. These are effects on our personality, that cannot be predetermined at the womb or birth. By ignoring influences such as these, we suggest our fate is predetermined but then, nothing would really change, we couldn't be saved, hope would be minute. Human nature would most likely win etc. "Choices can be made in the present, nature is background or recessive" the philosopher said to the biologist. I'd argue so.

People are Born Gay "Why would people subject themselves to the kind of ridicule that homosexuals experience, willingly?" What you call ridicule the homosexual community embrace as freedom of their beliefs. The homosexuals knowing accept the way they have made themselves. From what you are saying also is that people should keep any unaccepted social norm to themselves are never confront it. That is unkind. Also to add the sentence I have quoted offer no proof or backs any claim my opponent has made in his opening argument. As the instigator it is not wrong of me to assume that you have proof to back your claim. To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date. —PFLAG (Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians And Gays), "Why Ask Why: Addressing the Research on Homosexuality," 1995 [1] [1]http://www.queerbychoice.com...

born gay Yes, we have a choice in life to be ourselves but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with.

Born gay part 2 I do not think being gay is as simple as a choice, but I believe that when you're a child you are still trying to form connections and gather facts about the world. During this time you form your basic fundamental traits, although some genes do make some traits prominent than others, but you form what you think is socially acceptable, and you aren't even close to figuring things out about sexuality. I believe that during this time when you are so open to what you're parents tell you and what facts you are gathering, later in life you may develop certain personality traits that may make you homosexual, due to the basic fundamental connections you have formed as a child.

Sexual Orientation is a choice I understand my opponent had some difficulties so I will end with my round 3 argument and then a closing statement. -Round 3- "As we see laws and rules regarding homo-sexuality change around the world, many people may feel like they would be more accepted if they changed sexual orientation." Do you think that this could be because they were afraid of being persecuted before hand? In Iran the threat of hanging may lessen homosexual activity, but there are still plenty of gays. (Some are forced into a sex-change because, curiously, transsexualism is more acceptable to the State.) There is a tribe in the New Guinea highlands called the 'sambia', where the practice (until recently) was for younger boys to be isolated from all female company and to fellate older boys in order to ingest their virility. The early teens were spent performing fellatio and the later teens being fellated. If any cultural pressure was going to create homosexuality surely this would be it - only it didn't. Come adulthood, most Sambia males emerged as married heterosexuals - with only around 5% of "backsliders" continuing to seek boys to fellate them (Herdt, 1981). This is much the same as the proportion of gay males in Western society. "Another example is life experiences. Many people that are "born" straight may feel confused if they grow up seeing mostly straight people, then go out on their own and see gay couples." One of the first clues that people are born rather than made gay is that sex role behaviour, interests, toy and play preferences that relate to adult sex orientation can be observed from the earliest years. Some girls are described as "tomboys" and boys identified as 'sissies' when very young, usually by the age of 3. This is technically known as childhood gender nonconformity and it is strongly predictive of homosexuality in adulthood (Lippa, 2008). About 75% of CGN children grow up to be gay or lesbian. This would seem to place the origins of sex orientation much earlier than any supposed incidents of seduction and contagion in the early teens. There are actually differences in the anatomy of the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Where there are characteristic differences between male and female brains, these are often reversed in gay men and women. For example, LeVay (1991) found that a hypothalamic nucleus concerned with sexual behaviour (INAH-3), was smaller in gay men than straight men (indeed, more like that of women). Part of the conduit linking the left and right sides of the brain (the corpus callosum) is larger in homosexual men and straight women (Witelson et al, 2008). The brains of straight men and lesbians are larger in the right hemisphere than the left, but in gay men and straight women the two sides are symmetrical.). The amygdala, a mid-brain area important for emotional learning seems to be wired for a greater fight-flight response in straight men and lesbians than gay men and straight women (Savic & Lindstrom, 2008). Ponsetti et al (2007) found less gray matter in the perirhinal cortex in lesbians compared with straight women but no comparable differences between gay and straight men. [1] In regards to my opponents point that our parents have an affect on sexual orientation, I'd just like to place this link here to be observed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... I personally have a slight doubt that this father never gave off the opinion that he accepted homosexuality. it is clear that sex orientation is embedded within a bio-psychological context that goes beyond the simple question of who or what turns us on. It is a fundamental part of our nature that is not easily tilted by social events during development. Being raised by homosexual parents does not alter a child 's sexuality and those who fear their son can be initiated into homosexuality by an encounter with a paedophile priest or scoutmaster may sleep easily. [2] Recognition of the inborn nature of sexual orientation may underlie increasing acceptance of homosexuality in Western countries. [1] http://www.gresham.ac.uk...... [2] Wilson, G.D. & Rahman, Q. Born Gay: The psychobiology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen, 2005. -Closing- I'd like to thank my opponent for the debate, this is a topic I dwell over quite often. I believe that sexual orientation IS NOT a choice. The evidence I have provided will hopefully sway some of you (the voters) in my direction. Thanks for reading/voting!

Sexual orientation I believe it is a combination. Many are born that way and others choose to be that way. Those that are born that way were an accident of nature. The same as many other deformity's like being born with one arm, blindness, etc. If you love someone you try to mend their handicap, not accept it as normal. Those that choose it are just sick.

Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology I'm going to defend the following point: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology. I challenge anyone who can prove me wrong.

Sexiality Isn't a Choice Please Note: I'm NOT attempting to offend anyone, nor am I against those who are other than heterosexual. I wish the best of luck to me and my opponent. Sexuality in my honest opinion isn't wired into one's brain at a very young age, nor do I believe one is automatically heterosexual when born. I believe it was taught someway, somehow weather through society or media. I seen people go from straight to gay vice versa, I've heard many say biologically it's naturally weird into one's brain, but honestly I find that false due to the fact a child doesn't yet have the knowledge on the meaning of sexuality. When children view television, magazines, movies, cartoons, etc. It's influencing children in some kind of way.

Homosexuality is not a choice All sexual orientations are determined by a complex interaction of traits, with no single gene acting as the "signal" for whether you like members of the same sex, members of the opposite sex, or both. Therefore, essentially your environment plays a role in deciding what sex(es) you end up being attracted too. For example, lets say I'm a gay male, I can choose to date, have sex, etc. with women (doesn't mean I'll like it) but, nonetheless I can choose to do it. On the other hand, I can't choose to be attracted to them because I'm gay, no matter how hard I try, I can't choose to be unattracted to men.

HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE Ask yourself this "when did you choose to be straight"? A person's sexual orientation is not a black or white matter, sexual orientation exists along a continuum, with exclusive attraction to the opposite sex on one end of the continuum and exclusive attraction to the same sex on the other. There is a great deal of research suggesting that sexual orientation is congenital. Common sense tells us that no one sits down one day and goes, "Hmmmm" should I be gay or straight?" but rather some people find themselves attracted to people of the same gender. But there are people who consciously decide to experiment with their sexuality, to try gay sex and see if they like it. Some radical feminists embrace lesbianism for political rather than sexual reasons. As some men in prison with strong sexual desire use other men for sex. This can cause some people to believe that homosexual behavior is the same thing as homosexual attraction. What if behavior doesn't match well with attraction? What if people usually enjoy sex with one gender but only fall in love with the other? What if a person's past doesn't reflect his or her present feelings? Sexuality is much more complex than we know, but we are gaining understanding through science. So the real question should be what causes homosexuality? Research suggest that homosexuality is hereditary. https://www.eurekalert.org... http://www.journals.uchicago.edu... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.pnas.org... http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... However in spite of all of the above scientific studies, according to the American Psychological Association's own website, "there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; however most people whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." From all of this I can draw only one conclusion. Homosexuality is not a choice.

People can be born Homosexual. I will be arguing that Homosexuality is not just a choice, but some people are born with it.

There's no such thing as being born GAY! First and for most before I start this argument I will state that I am NOT going to cite sources or back up material for a lot of information that I use for several different reasons; either it is common knowledge, common sense, or the information in my argument can easily be verified and looked up at any time on any search engine. It is not rocket science but any information I use can be searched and confirmed on your own time. First I will start by saying that there is no definitive proof that lower levels of testosterone effect sexual orientation. You never mentioned the female hormone estrogen which some females are born with lower levels of but are not Lesbians. You stated verbatim that "The developing male fetus receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation," yet there are lots of heterosexual men born with lower levels of testosterone so if what you are saying is accurate then these men should be GAY. On the same note as stated in Wikipedia testosterone is a steroid hormone not a sexual orientation hormone and it plays a key role in males in the development of their reproductive organs as well as promoting secondary sexual characteristics such as increased muscle, bone mass, and the growth of body hair. Also falling in love is scientifically proven to lower levels of testosterone in males and increase testosterone in females which means that testosterone levels have intermittent highs and lows throughout the lifetime of a human being. It is our natural affinity to constantly go through hormonal changes all throughout life so why would something that is permanently innate in human development "SUDDENLY" have an affect on sexual orientation even if it happens prematurely during birth? Also on Wikipedia nowhere does it say TESTOSTERONE has "ANYTHING" to do with gender attraction nor in Human Biology which I took in college. The course covers over several chapters of detailed research and scientific information on different hormones, their effects on the body, and what they mean to our anatomy but there is not ONE reputable source that definitively confirms and proves without a doubt your claims about Testosterone having anything to do with sexual orientation; it is all speculation and not fact. Then you said, "The developing MALE FETUS receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation." So I guess only males are born GAY??? And females get to choose... yes I see your logic! Second I love hypocrisy in debate it's great because I love how you said "In addition, another study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable," then you said "Just like the analogy that is used in my evidence, it is simply like being left handed." How is this statement any different from my pedophilia, scam artist, thief analogy? But I will get back to that later in the argument now is not the time lol! I want to address the fact that you said a study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable... how so? I would have loved to know which study this was and how they were able to prove something like that and what was the deciding factor that proved it, but as expected you couldn't offer anything more than just an enigmatic statement. You also stated verbatim that... "A study was done by Dr. Ward, who found that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain. The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it cannot change. These are all studies and examples that sexual orientation is, in fact, proved to be ingrained within a person before birth." "Androstenedione" as it is correctly spelled is the common precursor of male and female sex hormones as also stated in Wikipedia. It does lots of things in the human body but nowhere does it say that it has ANYTHING to do with sexual orientation or gender commitment however there is speculation that it may have estrogenic side-effects but that has yet to be proven because no one has ever had a high enough intake. Second Androstenedione was manufactured as a dietary supplement, often called andro for short. Andro was legal and able to be purchased over the counter, and, as a consequence, it was in common use in Major League Baseball throughout the 1990s by record-breaking sluggers like Mark McGwire. The International Olympic Committee in 1997 banned Androstenedione and placed it under the category of "androgenic-anabolic steroids" and for this reason it is banned by MLB, the NFL, USOC, NCA, and by the NBA. If Androstenedione has the ability to "prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain," as you've stated then why have none of these athletes who habitually have taken this supplement have displayed any homosexual-like behavior or characteristics in any way what-so-ever?? Odd don't you think? And you use this estranged person called Dr. Ward? I looked him up and couldn't find a Dr. Ward only someone named Dr. Ward F. Odenwald if that's who you're talking about who did his research on HOMOSEXUALITY in 1995!! I was 9 years old!! Which was almost 20 years ago! So his research is null-and-void and means nothing because everything he "THOUGHT" he proved has yet to come to fruition! His so-called GAY discovery Androstenedione which was banned 2 years AFTER his research has not had the effect that he claimed it has on MALES and almost 20 years later and counting no athlete who took Androstenedione on a regular basis as a supplement has yet to experience changes in their sexual orientation. You also stated that sexual orientation was in-grained at birth yet you told me in the last argument that you cannot prove that someone who was GAY actually turned straight... that statement is a contradiction yet people do it all the time and YOU KNOW IT! In-grained my AZZ! I've had friends who were GAY and turned STRAIGHT and when asked about their decision to become heterosexual they said at one point they were attracted to the same gender and now they're JUST NOT!! I'm a female and I was attracted to other females for almost 6 years and now I'M NOT!! I'm attracted to guys and have been dating them ever since! People change their sexual preference all the time not to mention I CHOSE my sex partners thus choosing my orientation and was not in-grained with it. It is a personal choice just as simple as one day wanting Cheese cake and the next day Apple Pie! Lastly I'm going to skip arguing a lot of the stuff you said because it's pointless and I've already won so I will conclude this round by replying with a rebuttal to a statement that you made when you said... "It is unreasonable to compare homosexuals being born the way they are to relate pedophiles and scam artists to the same cause. There is no way you can justify this. You are going into a different issue. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about sexual orientation, and not ACTUAL CHOICES and POOR DECISIONS people choose to make, like scamming or being a rapist." My response to that is no it is not unreasonable because the basis of my argument is that there is no such thing as people being born gay... it is a personal choice! I am not going into a different direction by naming people that live these other various lifestyles because this has everything to do with my argument because being GAY is ALSO a lifestyle and it is a lifestyle choice. And you consider people who live as pedophiles, scam artists, rapists and so forth to be "ACTUAL CHOICES" and "POOR DECISIONS" yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not? LMAO Get out of here! There are STRAIGHT men who even do this for the money and solely for the money so get the heck out of here but in your biased logic it can't be an ACTUAL CHOICE or male prostitution it's an "epi-mark" no wait it's too much "Androstenedione" at birth, no no it's "lack of Testosterone"!! Wait it's in the "BRAIN"!! HAHA Which one is it?? Pick one! LMAO!!

Homosexuality is Genetic My opponent has not made any separate points, therefore, no rebuttals from me. My conclusion: APA states: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."[1] VOTE CON Good luck Pro [1]http://www.onenewsnow.com...

Being gay is not a choice. Clarifications: My opponent denies the MEDICAL DEFINITION of homosexuality in favor of the *Wikipedia* definition. Clearly the proper medical definition should prevail in this debate; the only reason Con refuses to accept it is because he cannot win this debate unless the definition is skewed in his favor. The purpose of the debate is to affirm or negate the resolution. Both the instigator and contender should give definitions that are applicable to the resolution. The audience should decide which one is the proper term. Again, Con's explanation is from Wikipedia; mine is from the medical community. Moreover, this debate isn't so much about homosexuality as it is about being gay (homosexual). So, even if *homosexuality* is defined as the romantic or sexual attraction towards members of the same sex, the fact remains that being a homosexual merely means possessing those feelings - or being inclined to possess those feelings - not necessarily acting on them. So, one might be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc. without ever having sex; it's all about how your brain is wired to act (what it is built to respond to). Rebuttal: 2. Suicide Con begins, "Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all." That is completely false. If there is a gay gene (which many scientists agree there is), it means that infants are born gay -- that is, predisposed to homosexuality. It is the *genes* and other *biological determinants* that influence sexuality. In fact, as my sources have pointed out (which Con did not negate at all), scientists have now discovered various links and patterns related to homosexuality that explains why the "gay gene" can and does get passed on and to whom. Further, "Sexual health is more than the absence of sexual pathology. The anatomy, gender and function of the human body is the foundation of identity. The awareness of the sexual self as an integrated aspect of identity begins in INFANCY with the attitudes about the physical body" [1]. So, here we can see that Con's contention that infants are without sexuality is blatantly false, and my notion that infants do not have the mental or physical capacity to commit suicide stands. 3. Seclusion Con writes, "How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with?" In other words, Con is saying that if one is not having sex with anyone, then one does not have a sexuality... so they aren't gay or straight. Again, that is incredibly FALSE. Ladies and gentlemen, you only have to consider your own sexuality to determine the validity of this statement. Before you ever had sex (or for those of you who are still virgins) -- don't you know what sexuality you are? Don't you know which sex or gender you're attracted to and would like to have sex with? If so, you're acknowledging that one can absolutely be considered gay or straight before they ever have sex, or even if they deny themselves sex or choose not to have sex. Con asks, "Why would a person in seclusion possibly fit the definition of "homosexual?" Even using Con's completely flawed definition of homosexuality -- having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex -- we can see how obviously someone who is living in seclusion can still be gay! It only requires having romantic or SEXUAL ATTRACTION to someone of the same sex. That "someone" can be a celebrity, porn star or even fictional person that one masturbates to. The point is: even in seclusion, one can still have sexual attractions or thoughts. If it's for someone of the same sex/gender, then they're gay by both Pro's and Con's presented definitions. Con's argument fails. 4. Sedation Con writes, "Genetics and non-neurological biology are irrelevant to the definition at hand. A person can be sedated before ever being gay in the first place." Again, this is completely FALSE. I've already explained and proven via scientific data that sexuality is most definitely linked to genetics and other biological factors. This is common sense and information learned in every 8th grade health class. Your brain and bodily functions are responsible for sexual attraction and intercourse. We have a reproductive system for a reason; that system is led by none other than the brain. Also, I don't understand why Con's neglecting my example of someone having sex while sedated. Fortunately it's not a major part of my case. Anyway, further proof: Genetic evidence suggests a heritable component and putative gene loci on the X chromosome. Homosexuality may have evolved to promote same sex affiliation through a conserved neurodevelopmental mechanism. Recent findings suggest this mechanism involves atypical neurohormonal differentiation of the brain. Key areas for future research include the neurobiological basis of preferred sexual targets and correlates of female homosexuality [2]. Arguments: 1. Rape When presented with my example of rape (which fits the parameters of Con's flawed definition), Con's only response was, "As this is a rare situation, it cannot be used to affirm a general resolution." Fellow debaters, please consider the debates you have read and participated in here on DDO. Is that a true statement? Absolutely not. A resolution is general, yes, but rare examples can absolutely be used as evidence for either side. Furthermore, rape is not as rare or extreme as my opponent would like you to believe; 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men are sexually abused per year [3]. 2. Being Once again, even if someone commits suicide before having gay sex, they are still gay beings (they may simply not be sexually active gay beings, the same way heterosexuals can be straight but not sexually active). As such, if one commits suicide to prevent themselves from being gay, they're still gay before committing the suicide. Again, the only way Con can win this point is to prove that homosexuality is not genetic or determinant on any biological factors. Of course this is impossible to prove and as such my point stands. 3. Biology The point of this contention was to prove how homosexuality is linked to biology and as such it affirms all of my others points. Counter-Examples: Being Pro or Con is irrelevant. Each side has an equal burden of proof. Con says that he only needs one counter-example to disprove the resolution, which he has given in terms of suicide and sedation. Why should Con's extreme examples be considered but my more common example of rape should not? That is a double standard certainly not supported by any debate etiquette or paradigms; Con's simply trying to help further his failed position. Nevertheless, the resolution is entirely true. Conclusion: Medical evidence supports the theory that people are born predisposed to homosexuality (being attracted to the same sex). Before one acknowledges their sexual identity, they are still privy to their sexuality -- they are simply unaware of it yet or not yet biologically inclined towards sex. This applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Just because one might be a virgin, secluded or sedated does not mean that they are not gay; it just means that they're not having gay sex. While secluded, one may very well still have gay feelings (which even supports Con's definition). If one chooses death, they may very well choose to cease being gay; however, cannot deter from the fact that they were gay up until the time they were dead. So, if an individual is gay for *any moment in time* I argue that it is not their choice. The resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.ejhs.org... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [3] http://www.rainn.org...

Homosexuality is psychological and not biological. Again, thanks for your contribution. In the interests of clarity and ease, both for myself and the readers, perhaps when you make an affirmative claim you might wish to quote what you feel is the key portion from a website or study, rather than merely several links to various. We only have 3 days to formulate something close to digestible replies, and the readers only a relatively short time to digest information therein. It would therefore be of great use to everyone if you could perhaps lift what sections you deem absolutely conclusive from your sources and quote them inside the main body of your text. You may also then provide links as well of course. We will commonly hear homosexuals talk about being 'born gay'. Because this is repeated and unchallenged in the media, general society takes on the idea as scientific fact - when it's anything but so. I would even go as far as to say that people who believe others are 'born gay' are essentially like an informal faith based cult. A faith entirely lacking in rationality or empirical scientific evidence. It would be perfectly possible for geneticists to study a DNA sample from an African, Asian or European man and determine from that sample which was which. This is very easy for them to do for there are clear and self evident genetic markers and differences. They can go further still. They can break it down, so that your results might be that you are 90% European, 5% African and 5% Jewish. This is so easy and commonplace now that anyone can do it online and for a small fee. But can could scientists take the gene samples of babies and determine which were hetro and which would be homosexual? Could they do it with a large participation sample and repeat the results time and again as per the scientific process? No they cannot and they have not. The reason why they cannot and never will is that no one is born gay, and scientists would not be able to determine by a compare and contrast of samples from new born babies. It should be clear by now that whatever homosexuality is rooted in that thing is not biological or genetic. But since it obviously exists and a real thing we are left with the question - what is it mainly rooted in(or even exclusively so)? The answer is patently in the psychological. From an evolutionary perspective you might wonder why a male 'born gay' would also produce semen? Semen is for procreation and a man cannot impregnate another man. You'd have to wonder why the female 'born gay' would have eggs. A women cannot impregnate another women. This would further indicate to me that no baby is born 'genetically gay'. The parallels between many of those with the pathology of homosexuality can be juxtaposed with recognised psychological conditions and you will see some startling similarities. The much higher instances of drug use (self medicating even), the high risk taking behaviours, casual disregard for consequence, greater instances of self harm and suicidal ideation, sexual promiscuity but difficulty in sustaining relationships, commonly highly sensitive to any criticism while being fiercely critical of others. There is a reason why there would be some many parallels - the psyche of homosexuality is in of itself a psychological state of mind, most likely born from one or more triggers in their key development years. In the video I provided in my OP a range of homosexuals were asked frankly about their first sexual encounter of any kind. Around 90% or more answered that there was either some molestation at the hands of another male or at the very least an early sexualisation owing to exposure to sex. This does not mean that being molested is the trigger in all. But I think it is fair to say that if a boy aged between 2-12 is molested(maybe repeatedly) by men, that the child is going to grow up with an altered and damaged sexual psyche. ** Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born British homosexual activist who founded the "direct action" group OutRage! that specialises in media stunts wrote on Spiked Online that he agrees with the scientific consensus that there is no such thing as a "gay gene ** Tatchell wrote, "Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But thatï¿½s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things." Tatchell even went as far as to acknowledge the existence of some who have changed their "sexual orientation." "If heterosexually and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predeterminedï¿½ how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't." Sexuality, he wrote, is "far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow." "Examples of sexual flexibilityï¿½ donï¿½t square with genetic theories of rigid erotic predestination." ** Richard B. Gartner, PhD, Training and Supervising Analyst, Faculty and Founding Director of the Sexual Abuse Program at the William Alanson White Institute, wrote in his Jan. 30, 2011 article "Talking about Sexually Abused Boys, and the Men They Become," available at www.psychologytoday.com: "Finally, when the abuser is male (and even sometimes when she is female), many boys - whether straight or gay - develop fears and concerns about sexual orientation. Conventional wisdom says sexual abuse turns boys gay, although there's no persuasive evidence that premature sexual activity fundamentally changes sexual orientation. Nevertheless, a heterosexual boy is likely to doubt himself, wondering why he was chosen by a man for sex. A homosexual boy may feel rushed into considering himself gay, or may hate his homosexuality because he believes it was caused by his abuse." Helen W. Wilson, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, and Cathy Spatz Widom, PhD, Professor of Criminal Justice and Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at The City University of New York (CUNY), wrote the following information in their Jan. 7, 2009 article published by Archives of Sexual Behaviour, "Does Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, or Neglect in Childhood Increase the Likelihood of Same-sex Sexual Relationships and Cohabitation? A Prospective 30-year Follow-up": "Findings from this investigation provide tentative support for a relationship between childhood sexual abuse and same sex sexual relationships, but this relationship appeared only for men. That is, men with histories of childhood sexual abuse were more likely than men in a control group to report same sex sexual partnerships... " David W. Purcell, JD, PhD, Deputy Director for Behavioural and Social Science, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, et al. State in their article "Childhood Sexual Abuse Experienced by Gay and Bisexual Men: Understanding the Disparities and Interventions to Help Eliminate Them," published in the 2008 book Unequal Opportunity: Health Disparities Affecting Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States: "In sum, regardless of the rigor of the sample selection, when comparing MSM [men who have sex with men] samples to general male population samples, and when comparing MSM and heterosexual men within one sample, MSM consistently report more CSA [childhood sexual abuse] overall and more CSA with males than heterosexual men do; and no differences are observed for reported abuse by femalesï¿½ These studies bolster our conclusion that a disparity exists between gay/bisexual men and heterosexual men when it comes to CSA by males http://borngay.procon.org...

Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and the... Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and their upbringing will not be affect their sexuality. Attempting to suppress this genetic predisposition has resulted in great misery for many people. Rather, we should accept this and look to embrace all gay people fully – which must include celebrating gay role models, especially as responsible parents.

Some babies are born with a predisposition to homosexuality (both human and in other races), and their upbringing will not be affect their sexuality. Attempting to suppress this genetic predisposition has resulted in great misery for many people. Rather, we should accept this and look to embrace all gay people fully – which must include celebrating gay role models, especially as responsible parents.

There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. First I would like to point out that Con's position is not based on evidence or reason but on a gut feeling he has or a misinterpretation of anecdotal experiences he's had. Sexual orientation deals with preference and attraction which don't bend at will but are conditioned through a combination of genetics and environment. As a sort of tongue and cheek demonstration that sexual orientation doesn't change at our whim I would ask our audience to force themselves to find this thing attractive(of course applying to people that don't find it attractive) [IMG]. http://www.funnypica.com...[/IMG] . http://www.funnypica.com... In a study it was found that 52% of cases in which an identical twin was homosexual, the other was also a homosexual. You may say, yes but that's because they're raised in the same environment, but the same study showed that only 22% of cases in which a fraternal twin was homosexual the other was homosexual. This is clear evidence that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. . http://www.nytimes.com... Studies have shown that the long arm of x chromosome Xq28 increases the odds that a male will be homosexual. . http://www.nature.com...

Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Before beginning with my rebuttals i will quote con: 3. If any kind of behavious is created by environmental factors, or society, they should be able to be healed using therapy like the one that has been used for rape victims and criminals. If being gay has a social/environmental factor, then therapy of any kind must change them into heterosexuals or 'reduce the amount of homosexuality'. Why is there a need to "reduce the amount of homosexuality"? It is not a psycopathology. There is no need to cure it. The DSM-5 does not include homosexuality. When i talk about sexual orientation, i'm not only considering homosexuals and heterosexuals, i'm also considering bisexuals, asexuals, sexually fluid people and so on. REBUTTAL (Sexuality in animals): The fact that there are queer animals does not make any point. I said biology does affect sexual orientation, i didn't deny that. (Animals regardless of the kind of place they live will show the same amount of variation of sexuality): The link you showed me doesn't show any experimental or statistical information, so you cannot make such assumptions. Just gay penguins, again, i didn't say they aren't gay, in fact they are. 1) Sexuality alters through time (at least for sexually fluid people): http://www.hup.harvard.edu... And i quote from this very link: "Lisa M. Diamond argues that for some women, love and desire are not rigidly heterosexual or homosexual but fluid, changing as women move through the stages of life, various social groups, and, most important, different love relationships." Also, epigenetics is influenced by the environment: http://cdp.sagepub.com... I agree with you, conversion therapy should not be done, and hurts homosexuals. I will finish with the abstract of an interesting link i found on pubmed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Your not born gay Since it is only a one round debate, I'll just give it all I got. I have done some researching and studying regardings this topic and here I will post my findings and prove that you are indeed born gay. Scientific researchers specializing in human sexuality have shown that homosexuality is genetic (and that people are born gay). I am unaware of any study that has ever suggested that sexual orientation is a choice. Scientific research from October 2004 that was replicated in June 2008 stated that scientists have found that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation. A lead researcher said "You have all this antagonism against homosexuality because they say it's against nature because it doesn't lead to reproduction. We found out this is not true because homosexuality is just one of the consequences of strategies for making females more fecund" and that their findings offered "a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. " A 2005 study reported genetic scans showing a clustering of the same genetic pattern among gay men on three chromosomes - chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother. A study published in Human Genetics in February 2006 examined X chromosome inactivation in mothers of gay sons and mothers whose sons were not gay. Researchers found extreme differences between women who had gay sons and women who did not. A study from 2006 said that researchers have known for years that a man's likelihood of being gay rises with the number of older biological brothers, but the new study found that the so-called "fraternal birth order effect" persists even if gay men were raised away from their biological families & that "the research suggests that the development of sexual orientation is influenced before birth. "Seeing the overwhelming evidence, I hope that the audience agrees with me! Thank you.

homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with No, there's no gay gene. There's no "male" gene either. Most complex traits are governed by multiple genes, the womb, and their epigenetic interaction. Talking about a gay gene is a red herring. What we do know is that there is a strong heritability component: one way of proving this is by comparing the concordance rates of identical twins with those of fraternal twins. Heritable conditions occur more frequently in identical twins. Being gay occurs more frequently in identical twins. But of course it's not all genetic. It's just that research shows no consistent link between any childhood factor and becoming gay. (There is some research linking sexual trauma to being gay, which is an inconsistent finding, however many of those subjects identified as gay before the trauma occurred). And since we do find correlation to prenatal conditions, the evidence is that it is an accident of birth. And given the overwhelming failure of conversion therapy to achieve its ends (and the experience of most gay people that they don't change even when they try), we are left to the conclusion that as far as we can tell it's both innate and immutable. I can't speak for the very few "success" stories of conversion therapy; maybe a very very few people have some interceding quality that lets them change, but the simpler explanation is that they were at least somewhat bisexual to begin with (since not all bisexuals favor both genders equally).

Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' Twin studies Twin studies can estimate what percent of a trait is genetic through concordance. If one twin has a trait, and the other twin shares this trait, they are considered concordant [1]. If one twin is gay, and the other twin is gay 50% of the time, the concordance rate is 50%, so the trait is estimated to be around 50% genetic. If a trait is 100% genetic, there is a 100% concordance rate. Twin studies for homosexuality find extremely small genetic influences. Using a massive Australian register with 33,000 participants—or 16,500 twin pairs—finds extremely low concordance rates of 11% for men and 14% for women. So genes likely contribute a low 11-14% portion of homosexuality [2]. 11-14% genetic rates in this field of research are considered weak. To say something is about 10% genetic is not significant at all. To put it into perspective, puberty has been shown to be 90% genetic [3]. To say something is 10% genetic is basically saying genes have almost no effect, and the trait is likely environmentally driven. Many twin studies have been undertaken in order to find what effect the environment has on homosexuality. They tend to find shared environment—the environment both of the twins experience—has 0 effect. But non-shared environment—such as a different perception to an event, being harmed in other ways (many reasons)—contributed to about 54-84% of homosexuality [4]. the *vast majority* of homosexual orientation is dictated by one’s environment, not biological predisposition. There is reason to believe those studies overestimate the genetic effects and underestimate the environmental effects. Shared environmental factors—such as having a gay parent—are often considered ‘nonshared’ factors, and are often dubbed down by the authors. When this is accounted for the genetic contribution is about 10% [5]. Gay parents If being gay was biologically determined, children of gay parents would not have higher rates of homosexuality. However, children raised by gay parents tend to have much higher rates of homosexuality—indicating environments play a large role in determining homosexual orientation. A massive review recently published amassed a gargantuan amount of literature in order to test whether or not children raised by homosexuals tend to be homosexual. The author concluded—citing 150 studies written by authors who claim there is no difference—finds that there is a difference. Children raised by gay parents tend to be more likely to have nonheterosexual orientations. The study even cites works by authors who have eviscerated the no difference hypothesis. The study argues “children of nonheterosexual parents have been more likely to grow up to engage in same-sex sexual behaviors, or to identify as nonheterosexual, than children raised by heterosexual parents” [6]. A study published in 1996 which uses a random sample gives us some pretty interesting results. The study found children of homosexuals were much less likely to report exclusive heterosexuality. 47% of children raised by homosexuals said they were not exclusive heterosexuals (in contrast, about 97% of the overall population is exclusively heterosexual), and were more likely to say their first sexual experience was homosexual [7].A similar study by the same authors—this time using data from different books claiming there were ‘no differences’ between children raised by homosexuals when compared to heterosexuals—obtained similar results. 27% of children raised by homosexuals identified as homosexual, and 20% of sons reported exclusive homosexuality. This is much higher rate than children raised by heterosexuals [8]. A separate scholar—sociologist Walter Schumm—set out to see whether or not these results could be replicated. Schumm added upon the data set: not only were more anecdotal (book) respondents added, but research from other studies and an anthropological dataset were also added. The results—that children of gay parents were more likely to be gay—“was confirmed” [9]. Reorientation therapy Arguably the strongest argument against homosexuality being inborn is the fact homosexual orientation often changes. Traits which change are not genetic, but generally are environmentally determined. Although many homosexuals have actually changed without any therapy at all (it happens over time) [10], I will focus upon therapy. Research from as early as 1974 had found reorientation therapy was successful in 40% of cases in reducing unwanted homosexual attraction. A meta-analysis done in 2000 surveyed 30 studies in regards to how often people’s sexual orientation would change if they underwent therapy. A total of 327 subjects were present in the study. Of the sample, 33% reported significant changes in sexuality. A second analysis in 2002 reviewed even more literature than the previous studies. They found 79% who underwent treatment were more heterosexual than those in the control groups who did nothing [11]. Arguably these other studies all suffered from many methodological flaws. In this field of research, a lot of the research is forced to rely upon small sample sizes as not many people wish to undergo therapy. But in 2001, a large study by Robert Spitzer—a phycologist who was instrumental in getting homosexuality removed from the diagnostic list of mental disorders—seemed to have revered his previous position that homosexuality was immutable. The study had one of the largest sample in this field of research with “200 respondents of both genders (143 males, 57 females)”, and found that many individuals “reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation lasting 5 years or more” [12]. What is interesting is that a large amount of those surveyed—41 percent—had been openly gay prior to conversion therapy. Many charge that those who ‘changed’ didn’t really change, just that they were repressing their feelings. But the fact 41% were comfortable with homosexuality—at least to be open about it—became bisexual or heterosexual really indicates that real change does occur, and that the therapy is often very effective. An exact number of those who became heterosexual is around 64% for men and 44% for women (obtained ‘good heterosexual functioning’). A similar study published one year later involved a survey of 822 individuals who had obtained reorientation therapy. A law review citing the article noted how the study “Before counseling, 68% of the participants in the survey perceived themselves as exclusively homosexual, and another 22% stated that they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After their treatment or therapy, only 13% perceived themselves as exclusively homosexual, while 34% described themselves as exclusively heterosexual.”[13] So what environmental factors cause homosexuality? If my opponent can demonstrate a strong biological cause, this becomes refuted. However, I think it is important to clarify *what* type of factors have the potential to cause homosexuality. Some of the factors are discussed above. Social setting seems to be an important factor in the development of homosexuality. Being raised by a gay parent seems to be a risk, as well as being sexually assaulted in a homosexual manner [7][8]. Some societies seem to *promote* homosexuality which leads to increased homosexual orientation [6]. For men, some factors are “urban birthplace and an absent or unknown father”, and for women it is “an urban birthplace, maternal death during adolescence, and mother-absence.” A US study found “degree of urbanization … growing up in a more pro-homosexual region … a woman with a college degree was nine times more likely to identify herself as non-heterosexual … environments that sanction and/or promote homosexuality induce more individuals to engage in homosexual behavior.”[14] Wait, college makes you gay?! Sounds odd, but it isn’t what you think. The reason those who are homosexual are more educated is because many universities actually promote homosexuality. This theory has been supported by an abundance of evidence. Urbanization and a ‘pro’ gay society are strong factors in homosexuality development. Amongst western countries, the percentage of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals amongst a population varies greatly—indicating social factors help promote homosexuality. Indeed, a genetic trait—like height—has very little variation amongst the western world. Homosexuality, however, varies significantly [15]. The following graphs demonstrate this (height vs male homosexuality): Evidence which supports the idea that society causes homosexuality is that overtime homosexual experimentation has increased. In the UK it has increased from 1% to 2.8% [16]. Animals? There is a difference between homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. There are no known animals who have *long term* homosexual relationships. What occurs in animals is not directly applicable to what occurs in humans. Ram homosexuality supports the idea environmental factors cause homosexuality. Indeed, many argue the hormone differences between gay rams and straight rams prove homosexuality is innate amongst animals, however ram hormone levels change in response to environmental experiences. The environment (e.g. sex deprivation) seems to drive ram homosexuality [17]. 1. http://tinyurl.com...; 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. Ibid. 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. Ibid. 6. Walter Schumm. “Intergenerational of Parental Sexual Orientation and Other Myths,” International Journal of the Jurisprudence of the Family 4 (2013): 267-433. 7. Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron. “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 124 (1996): 757-776. 8. Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron. “Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties,” Psychological Reports 90 (2002): 71-82. 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://tinyurl.com... 13. http://tinyurl.com... 14. http://tinyurl.com... 15. http://tinyurl.com... 16. Ibid. 17. http://tinyurl.com...

born gay Being born gay means that you at birth are attracted to the same sex, which, is not true. Being gay is about how you perceived life and your ethics and codes that you now live by.

There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. I will be arguing that there is strong evidence that genetics play a huge role in the sexual orientation of homosexuals. Burden of proof will be on me.

There's no such thing as being born GAY! Also the report in the Chicago-sun Times excludes "ALL" GAY people and uses the term "SOME" which leaves out a number of exempt Homosexuals with no scientific, genetic or biological explanation for being GAY." I have another study to prove my point, as even though the specific page does use generalizing words, others do not. A review of current research shows that there is no evidence supporting a social cause for homosexuality [1]. There are multiple studies, both with animals and humans, demonstrating the causative relationship with the pre-natal testosterone during a critical stage in "defeminization". [2] Since sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which can result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation. There is more evidence that the orientation of a person occurs before they are born than afterwards. In addition, another study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable. Just like the analogy that is used in my evidence, it is simply like being left handed. It was viewed as being possessed by evil. Now, scientifically, we know that is not true. The developing male fetus receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation. [3] In 1972, a study was done by Dr. Ward, who found that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain. [4] The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it cannot change. These are all studies and examples that sexual orientation is, in fact, proved to be ingrained within a person before birth. "Second you specifically stated verbatim that "No families or ancestors were GAY because IT WAS NOT COMMON." I would like to point out this was taken out of context, as I did conclude to say that it was not common for people to express if they were homosexuals because it was inherently looked down upon. I did not intend for my point to be taken out of context and that it was uncommon in the sense that people were not. I intended for that to mean it was uncommon because of society, it was not something someone willingly came out to say. "Being GAY is none other than an example of "HERD BEHAVIOR" it is not genetic, biological, psychological or hereditary. As society shifted from old-school values and conservative traditions we entered into an era where the world and the lifestyles of people evolved and drastically changed as they always do. You also stated that homosexuality was looked down upon but the problem with that statement is that it neither proves or disproves whether family members or ancestors were or were not GAY... All that proves is that it was less liked by society so that is not even worth commenting on." My multiple sources of evidence off of my first point proves that sexual orientation is not because of herd behavior. It is because of the brains development. My statement about how homosexuality was looked down upon proves that even if people were gay, there would be no way to know. Even if we did disregard that comment, the evidence proves people are born gay. If we do or do not know if ancestors were gay, it really does not matter. Looking at current evidence and data, it is hereditary and biologically, and would negate your statements otherwise. This is definite proof. "Also these "Same-sex" behaviors expressed in animals by researchers, zoologists, and scientists alike have determined it to be demonstrations of platonic courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting; also the motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied which leads us back to the merry-go-round of constant guessing and justification but no definitive proof of anything." I need sources. I cannot assume your sources are reliable. I need actual evidence and sources. However, all of the same- sex behaviors you mention and what they demonstrate fully prove my point. It is ingrained in their minds. Also, my opponent has contradicted a previous argument of saying most instead of all, when my opponent did it themselves, by saying "...most species have not been fully studied..." Without a quantified amount, I cannot trust this statement as being reliable. Looking back at the previous round, a close species to humans, bonobos, have been studied and have same- sex behaviors. This is not guessing. This is solid and proved evidence. "First you said verbatim that "there is no way to prove someone went from being gay to straight, and was scientifically proved to be a homosexual. You cannot prove that someone decides to be gay and go straight on their own free will." If you cannot prove that someone is specifically homosexual then neither can you prove what makes a person homosexual." Again, this was taken out of context and misunderstood. I was talking about a previous argument made, about people changing their sexual preference. Relating sexual preference to what I said, it makes sense that no one would be able to prove if someone was actually meant to be gay or meant to be straight by the methods we have today. It does not contradict my point at all. If we had that evidence today, this would not even be a debate today. However, on newly watched studies with children I provided earlier, that is how we can prove if someone is gay. Someone cannot simply look at someone and assume if the person is homosexual. It takes a long- term study. This is the point I was trying to make. Lastly, homosexuality is about pride because homosexuality is a topic not all people are comfortable with. Even with contradicting religions and churches going against gays, it is about pride to stop gay stereotypes. Heterosexuality does not need parades or support because it is a relationship that is common. "There are sooooo many GAY people that it would have to mean that every single person in the entire world would literally have to carry this inborn trait. To say people are born GAY you would have to affirm sympathy for pedophiles and grant them the same clemency and extenuation not limited to but including scam artists, thieves, rapists, bigots..." I am very confused about this statement. First, again, my opponent is contradicting themselves again. My opponents argumentation was I am using words like most, but my opponent is saying statements that are using generalizing terms. Since you state there are so many gay people, every person would need to carry this trait. I would like evidence for this statement. Right now, my opponent cannot prove this, as my opponent gave no quantified amount of how many homosexual people are in the world. In regards to your second statement, I am shocked. It is unreasonable to compare homosexuals being born the way they are to relate pedophiles and scam artists to the same cause. There is no way you can justify this. Actually, you could never justify that statement even if you tried. You are going into a different issue. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about sexual orientation, and not actual choices and poor decisions people choose to make, like scamming or being a rapist. I have tried to be as civilized and respectful as I can possibly be. I expect the same respect towards the gay community in return. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.rrcstaff.com... [4] http://www.viewzone.com...

Homosexuality is a Choice Thanks, TMC. My case:A. Homosexuality in AnimalsNumerous animal species display homosexual orientations [1, 2] Some great examples include:Dolphins"Dolphins have a position on the top tier of animal intelligence, and are comparable to both chimpanzees and humans in cognitive and social abilities. Great diversity exists in dolphin societies as well, and numerous same-sex liaisons have been identified. In one incredible case, a pair of gay dolphins enjoyed a seventeen year relationship, while researchers identified a whole pod of dolphins--composed entirely of males--whose members were certainly not lacking in romantic experiences. It has become clear that dolphin relationships are extremely strong, regardless of the specific orientation...Many other dolphins have been found to be bisexual, enjoying passionate contact among [both sexes]." [2]Bonobos"Bonobos, which resemble miniature chimpanzees, are not only among the world's most intelligent animals but are in fact humanity"s closest relative...They're famous for using a language of love, rather than a language of aggression, to resolve problems and communicate with each other. Since many of the conflicts occur between two males or between two females, homosexual bonding is a frequent occurrence among these amorous apes. Sexual encounters may serve to increase social standing among females...but it also occurs among males, who may take a more 'play fight'-based approach." [2]Rams"Scientific studies have shown that up to an incredible eight percent of male sheep may form exclusively male-to-male pair bonds, forsaking all contact with the female ewes...These same sex couples do not mate, but they act as a couple in every other way throughout their lives. The homosexual herds stand out as an example of diverse relationship status among animals." [2]And, surprisingly, Dragonflies"Investigations have revealed a surprisingly high frequency of matings between same-sex dragonflies. Understanding the reasons for same gender pairings among such small invertebrates is challenging, and the interactions are poorly understood even today. Environmental chemistry and the unavailability of partners may be one factor influencing dragonfly mating behavior." [2]Since animals lack the rationality required to make higher-order decisions, they did not choose to be lesbian or gay, but were born that way or driven to such action by instinct. In other words, they had no choice in the outcome of their sexuality.B. Behavioral AnalysisLearned behavior can be untaught. [3] Something that is innate cannot be untaught. For example, no psychologist could teach me to turn my blues eye brown or teach me how to turn my white skin chocolate. In this same way, homosexuality cannot be untaught. The APA, America's premier psychological association, has found that homosexuality cannot be "cured" and cannot be undone via therapy. [4] Other psychological experts concur. [5, 6] Even groups that have tried to unteach homosexuality have acknowledged their failures [7] and some studies supporting homosexuality as a choice retain only dubious credibility at best. [8] Therefore, people don't choose orientation.In fact, "since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation...Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association." [9] Even previously unpublished studies conducted by the military in WWII--a time of pronounced discrimination and stigmatization regarding the LGBTQ community, found that "They were 'conscientious, reliable, well-integrated and abounding in emotional feeling and sincerity.' In general, 'the homosexual leads a useful productive life, conforming with all dictates of the community, except its sexual requirements" and was "neither a burden nor a detriment to society.'" [10]C. BiologyIf something is caused biologically, such as the color of my hair, it is not a choice. "Researchers from UC Santa Barbara and Uppsala University found a biological basis for same-sex attraction, locating the origins of homosexuality in the womb. Epi-marks, the genetic switches that regulate how our genes express themselves, can be passed down from mother to son or father to daughter while the fetuses gestate, the researchers found, adding that certain 'sexually antagonistic' epi-marks may also be involved." [11]Recently, a twin study examining more than 7,500 twins made the following conclusion: "Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors..The results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior. [12]Besides twin studies, "chromosome linkage studies of sexual orientation have indicated the presence of multiple contributing genetic factors throughout the genome...Hamer et al. found that the gay men had more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side. Gay brothers who showed this maternal pedigree were then tested for X chromosome linkage, using twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles. In another finding, thirty-three of the forty sibling pairs tested were found to have similar alleles in the distal region of Xq28, which was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers." [12]Another study of interest regards the physical arousal of homosexuals in response to pheromones. "Gay and straight men respond differently to two odors that are believed to be involved in sexual arousal. The research showed that when both heterosexual women...and gay men are exposed to a testosterone derivative found in men's sweat, a region in the hypothalamus is activated. Heterosexual men, on the other hand, have a similar response to an estrogen-like compound found in women's urine. The conclusion is that sexual attraction...operates similarly on a biological level." [12]Finally differences in brain structure and even birth order have all been linked to homosexuality [12], suggesting possible biological roots. "The likelihood of being gay increases by about 33 percent with each additional older brother. From these statistics, researchers calculate that about 15 to 30 percent of gay men have the fraternal birth order effect to thank for their homosexuality...One of the leading explanations is called the maternal immunization hypothesis...When a woman is pregnant with a male fetus, her body is exposed to a male-specific antigen, some molecule that normally turns the fetus heterosexual. The woman’s immune system produces antibodies to fight this foreign antigen. With enough antibodies, the antigen will be neutralized and no longer capable of making the fetus straight. These antibodies linger in the mother’s body long after pregnancy, and so when a woman has a second son, or a third or fourth, an army of antibodies is lying in wait to zap the chemicals that would normally make him heterosexual." [13]Regarding brain difference, "The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart." [14]D. ConclusionTo conclude, I can do no better than to quote the American College of Pediatrics: "You are normal. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. All of the major medical organizations, including The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that homosexuality is not an illness or disorder, but a form of sexual expression. No one knows what causes a person to be gay, bisexual, or straight. There probably are a number of factors. Some may be biological. Others may be psychological…The fact is, you do not choose to be gay, bisexual, or straight." [9]E. Sources1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://listverse.com...3 - http://www.mentalhelp.net...4 - http://www.sgn.org...5 - http://www.mens-wellbeing.com...6 - http://communities.washingtontimes.com...7 - http://www.speroforum.com...8 - http://www.scientificamerican.com...9 - http://en.wikipedia.org...10 - http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...11 - http://news.yahoo.com...12 - http://en.wikipedia.org...13 - http://www.slate.com...14 - http://allpsych.com...

are people born gay In my personal opinion, I am neither pro-homosexuality or anti-sexuality, I do however believe in the fact that individuals are not able to change their identity in order to conform to the traditional agenda. Scientifically, we have not yet identified a certain link between brain structure or genetic make-up in relation to a person being homosexual. Although in a quarterly biology review, a group of scientists from NIMBioS discovered a link in epigenetics and homosexuality which supported the theory that sex-specific epimarks in the early developmental portion of fetal development that spur atypical amount of testosterone or estrogen to develop. These abnormal levels of either of these hormones cause a man to be more feminine or a women to be more masculine, which is what society typically labels as "gay" or "lesbian." In short, there is a very strong biological reason for one being homosexual, that reputes the claim that they make the choice to be heterosexual or homosexual. Needless to say, a fetus that is only a few weeks along cannot make a decision whether or not it will be homosexual. Source: http://www.eurekalert.org...

homosexuality is an unchangeable trait that you're born with Since Pro has not set the BoP, we can assume that the BoP is placed on Pro. All I need to do is provide a reasonable case homosexuality is something you are not born with.My Case:I would like to assert homosexuality is caused by nurture; not nature. In biology, we learn that we have traits. These can be determined by certain factors. These factors are physical, environment, and spiritual in nature. A physical factor would be a certain level of melanin causing pigmentation. An environmental factor could be growing up in a bad place in town; causing the person to be on constant alert. A spiritual factor could be someone keeping their virginity until marriage for their religion. While some traits are brought on by physical factors, our behavior is mostly shaped by our environmental and spiritual factors. A human's sexuality falls into this category of being shaped by environmental factors. Eight major studies in identical twins show that homosexuality is not genetic. As quoted by the article:"Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay. “Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.” Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.” The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors. Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other. For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says." (1)"Humans display a wide range of sexual feelings and behavior. Nowhere is this more prominent than in American culture which is saturated with images and references to sex and romantic love from television advertisements to billboard displays. Often, our identities as individuals are wrapped up with our romantic tendencies and how these play out in our relationships. Sometimes an individual’s sexual behavior is used as a barometer for his or her moral or religious beliefs. Our collective sense of how human sexuality should be expressed is revealed through the rights and liberties that structure our lives as citizens. We are sexual beings, yet this does not mean that we are born homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Our sexual expression can change over time, towards different people, through different experiences. A lack of understanding about this type of human variability often leads to a perspective that our genes define who we are. Each of the above areas of research displays findings that hinge on the assumption that a given individual’s sexual expression neatly fits into the categories “straight” and “gay.” By not considering evidence of human sexual fluidity, debates regarding origins and biology are not substantial or complete. Current efforts fail to tell the whole story. And even if we were to accept that the assigned sexual orientation of the individuals participating in these studies accurately reflected their lifelong expression, conclusive proof of a link between this and their genes has yet to be found."(2)It is clear that I have made the point that homosexuality depends on factors that are determined outside the womb. Thus, I have fulfilled my BoP. However, if my opponent still wants evidence, I'll be happy to provide Pro which such material. How can you change a person's sexuality? You can change it under the right environmental conditions. Rebuttals:Addressing opponent's 1st and 2nd argument:"But all of this evidence rests on the notion that sexual orientation is fixed and that individuals are either “straight” or “gay.” Researchers in these studies did not indicate whether individuals in their sample provided an extensive account of their sexual histories and tastes. Rather, individuals in the samples were simply asked to define their sexual orientation. In doing this, researchers set up a false dichotomy whereby the individuals studied are forced into one of two categories neither of which may accurately account for the full range of their sexual expression. Additionally, it is difficult to conclude with certainty that because a trait shows up more often among biologically-related siblings, it is inherited. In fact, many such traits appear to be linked to distinctly non-biological factors. Diet, drug addiction, religious and political orientation, and career paths are just a few of the behaviors that cluster in families due to shared social influences. Indeed, a shared environment can often produce a clustering of all types of behavior patterns. It is doubtful that any study could be designed with sufficient sensitivity to exclude this possibility. The methods used in family linkage studies, which depend upon recruitment from gay and lesbian magazines, websites, and organizations, carry a clear risk of ascertainment bias. Gay brother pairs may be more interested in responding than gay men with straight brothers, given the potential for homophobia among siblings and the substantial number of homosexuals who are “in the closet” toward their families. Twins or siblings who are both gay might find the subject interesting or already suspect a genetic basis of their shared sexual orientation, thus making them more likely to participate . In order to exclude these potentially confounding factors, more recent studies have drawn participants from random samples. A study in 2000 of 4,500 twins from the Australian Twin Registry by Bailey and colleagues showed only a 30% rate of homosexuality shared between both male and female identical twins." (2)Also, sources. Provide them. However, this proves such sources to be unfit to use.Response to argument 3:I have addressed this in my earlier argument.Response to argument 4, 5, 6, and 7:Thus, you admit some do change. This contradicts your stance that homosexuality is set from inside the womb. Also, source. Provide them.There are stories of people changing their sexuality in time; whether it be to heterosexuality of homosexuality. (3) (4) Again, this contradicts your claim. To sum them up, these are stories where the therapy actually worked and when people decided to be gay. In fact, a woman in source number four is a homosexual; yet acknowledges said therapies work in some occasions. Response to argument 8 and 9:Refer to my earlier argument.As for the "God" argument, I used to be Catholic. They taught in the Church that humans were given the right to autonomy; which is the ability to make an unbiased decision. With certain decisions, environmental factors could arise causing homosexuality; fulfilling God's right for our autonomy.I'm out of characters. I appreciate your time. Anime OP:1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com...

born a way I feel that yes people are born a certain way and shouldn't be judged by that, it is not a choice they made, it's how they are. acceding to pink news, "Yes, we have a choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else"s idea of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with." and for me, I was born this way, God chose this path for me to take. according to CARM "HomoSEXuality is a behavior, an action. It is not the same thing as a genetic condition, such as skin color, height, or gender. Homosexual intercourse (is there homosexuality without it?) is a behavior and is, therefore, something people choose to do. Actions are what people c

Nobody Can Determines Someone's Sexuality. Sexuality is not "Black and White". It is more like sliding scale. The sexual behavior, thoughts and feelings towards the same or opposite sex of the people are not always consistent across time. That's why nobody can determines someone's sexuality. You can prove it here: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org... -benshine7-

There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Really, genetics? okay well first off, homosexuals has NOTHING to do with genetics no matter how much evidence there is. A straight guy can easily go homosexual or any other sexual by his choice. Choosing which role you want to play as has nothing to do with DNA and it doesn't run thru the family.

Gender Identity is determined primarily by nurture, rather than nature. It is very hard to find reliable statistics on gender identity, I will concede that, however it is not up for argument that the amount of people who identify as heterosexual, is different between generations and demographics, as well as over time. Why do people of different demographics and ages identify differently? Are genetics mutating more rapidly? Are babies exposed to more toxins in the womb, than before? I argue the change in the percentage of population identifying as heterosexual is because of the effects of peoples upbringings, environment, and education. All attributes of nurture. To address your question of why I used sexuality in my contention, it is because gender identity and sexuality are different, however mutually inclusive. Thus if gender identity is primarily determined by nature, then sexuality would surely be to. In your last contention, you go on to state "The problem with this concept of gender identity is that it promotes the idea that you are what you feel, and that you can be anything you think you are." However this, and your whole contention have no relevance to the debate. One does not have to concede that nature is more of a determinant in gender identity, to agree that just because one identifies as a certain gender, does not mean they are that gender. This debate is not on the validity of ones identification, but on the causes of why they choose to identify by that. Many teenagers choose to identify as a different gender or sexuality because it is cool, or they have had sexual abuse happen to them in the past, or they are just confused. All of these reasons, and any other ones, are primarily caused by nurture rather than nature.

Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology 1. My opponent in Round 2 mentioned some environmental and physical conditions under which people's sexual orientation is affected. What I tried to prove through queer animals is that the factors mentioned for sexual orientation in case of humans are absolutely absent in animal world. Therefore all animals should have similar sexual orientations as they grow up under similar condition unlike humans. Parents of animals do not have divorces, some of them dont live in cities and some in forests and yet there are a range of sexual orientations in animals. 2. The sexual fluidity as mentioned by opponent seems as if he has assumed that sexual fluidity is change in sexual orientation. No! http://www.scienceofrelationships.com... Sexual fluidity is not a change in sexual orientation. Sexual fluidity does not imply that a person is homosexual for a given period of time and then turns heterosexual for a certain period of time. It also does not equal to bisexuality. Kindly donot confuse fluidity with bisexuality. 3. The fact that conversion therapy does not work is itself a proof that environment is not a factor. If I were depressed due to something bad happening to me (a physical factor) I could be cured by therapy but sexual orientation is not.

Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice The fact that an animal can be homosexual just shows that you know a bit about nature. Just because an animal is engaged in homosexual acts does not mean you are born gay. It just means an animal wants to have sex regardless of the gender it is having sex with. The animal is being bisexual instead of homosexual. Nature does not support animals being only homosexual. If you are saying that homosexuality is based on genes, all homosexuals would be bisexual. It is impossible that genes erode the notion of a choice if two people with identical genes don't have the same sex orientation 100% of the time. Genes can increase the likelihood of someone being gay but they do not make the person gay, if they made the person gay then everyone with that gene would be gay. Affecting something does not mean you have complete control over it. Genes can"t control behavior completely. Genes regulate the production of amino acids, which combine to form proteins. The existence or absence of a protein can have an effect on things like alcohol tolerance or mood. You cannot be born gay all because of a 'gay gene'. Let's take the alcohol gene for example. If someone was born with it they are not automatically going to be born an alcoholic. You are influenced by it. If you come from a culture where alcohol consumption is forbidden, it will be difficult for you to become an alcoholic, no matter how your body metabolizes alcohol. A hypothetical child who has the supposed gay gene, it didn't make them gay because before the child had sexual impulses they knew that girls go with boys so their body found the info to be contradicting and dismissed the effect of the gay gene. Biological process just influences the mind. The mind can override biological processes. I chose to be straight when I knew that boys are suppose to go with girls, not boys and boys or girls and girls. That is how my parents raised me. Even if I had this 'gay gene' as a child and it was influencing me. My mind did not know of men and men or women with women. Only man and women. There for my mind knew it didn't make sense, dismissed the gay gene and right there I chose to be straight.

Nurture versus Nature (BOP is equally shared) Sexuality is not gender. You are being stupid with that rebuttal., I know you are born with a gender but I think your sexuality is not inherited, I think you gain it as you grow, so I neither hold the view of it being born with you nor the religious view of it being a choice. I think it is your childhood experiences of male and female humans that shapes your sexuality, if you find females to be more appealing, you will be attracted to females, if you grow up with very appealing males and barely see attractive females I am pretty sure you'd grow to be gay. Additionally, as I said in the last round, if you grew up amongst wolves, you'd be sexually attracted to wolves, humans would seem like an alien species to you since you consider yourself to have the sexuality of a wolf due to your environment (nurture versus nature).Sexuality: a person’s sexual orientation or preference.[1]Your IQ argument is ridiculous. DO you think that children in the impoverished regions of this Earth have a high IQ? Of course not. All poor starving children will grow to be relatively unintelligent adults do you wish to know the reason why? If your brain is starved of nutrients as it grows, it will not turn out to have a high IQ. Additionally, exposure to omega 3,6 and 9 (all present in fish) largely affect IQ. This is ironically why even in poor regions of India, because so much of India eats fish in its curries, as do the Japanese, these countries generally produce individuals with jobs requiring high IQ (such as doctors, engineers and computer technicians). Environment is far more influential than genetics on IQ. The reasoning behind adopted babies having different IQ to each other is also relatively simple to explain. Two children brought up in the same household would still have had to have different in childhood. If one child befriended a smart child at school (smart for reasons of their upbringing) they would naturally compete to become smart, if the other grew up befriending less intelligent friends they would possibly dumb down to fit in. This is a common psychological trick of conformity. You will almost always adapt your IQ to fit that of your friends in the area in which you grew up. It isn't about genetics, it's about the urge to relate to them. If you grow up befriending the group of kids who are raised by rich 'upper class' parents then you will constantly debate as children and understand the concepts of economic success and why grades matter, thus causing you to have an in-built urge to study. As for the other sibling, they probably had a natural urge to befriend other types of people (yes this would be genetic) but apart form the natural tendency to befriend a type of people, they would have then adapted their IQ to that group of friends, often siblings don't like to befriend the same types of friends for the simple reason of competitiveness and rivalry. So if the older sibling befriended nerds, the younger child would hate to for simple rivalry. As for why the full siblings had similar IQ this is because they most likely had the natural urge to befriend the same type of people, but in the end that is not true for all siblings, not all biological siblings have same IQ, neither do all adoptive ones have differing IQ there are too many variables to draw conclusions from this.The tendency to alcoholism is also simple to explain, genes do not affect alcoholism. If they did, why is there a lot of straight-edge children of alcoholics? Because despite inheriting genes from an alcoholic father, they were environmentally affected to despise alcohol.Sources:[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...

Sexual orientation is not a choice I think I win

Causes of homosexuality What the facts are It is a common myth, one that my opponent is arguing, that people are “born gay”. But the fact is there is no reason to believe this claim. Byne and Parsons attempted to look into the results of if homosexuals are actually “born gay”. Their findings are actually very predictable: no one is born gay. They argued: “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. […] In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explana­tory power of extant psychosocial models.”[1] In other words, other non-genetic factors (i.e. environmental factors) are likely the main cause for homosexuality. Now one important type of study needed to conclude whether or not something is genetic is a twin study. This accurately measures inheritability amongst groups, and if the numbers are high enough (50% usually) then one can conclude it is heritable, and likely genetic. For something to be entirely genetic a twin study would have to get numbers near 100%. Therefore for my opponent to win this debate, if he chooses to use twin studies, must get number over 50% to prove genes are the main cause. The famous twin study that concluded homosexually was genetic actually conceded environment likely played a large role when they stated, “Buhrich et al reported a twin study of sexual orientation and related behaviors…They found a strong familial resemblance, but had insufficient power to determine whether that correlation was due to genetic or environmental factors or both.”[2] In other words, they concede that their correlation may be due to environmental factors, not genetic ones. I would also like to note that study’s conclusions where not replicated, when Byne and Parsons attempted to replicate their conclusions only found a 9.2% connection (both brothers are gay) rate, but un-related brothers have an 11% connection [1]. This means unrelated brothers are more likely to be gay then related ones. This right here actually proves some other factors, likely environmental ones, dictate sexuality. So what causes homosexuality if they are not “born that way”? There are many theories on what causes homosexuality, all of them more likely then a born that way theory. Many, such as Byne and Parsons, believe environmental factors are the main cause and much of these occurrences happen before the age of 4. They note, “it seems reasonable to suggest that the stage for future sexual orientation may be set by experiences during early development, perhaps the first 4 years of life.”[1] This theory is backed by many studies, credible ones, unlike the “born that way” theory, which is highly flawed. And the rebuttals will make me prove that later. Now other studies polled multiple homosexual males, and heterosexual males for a control variable, and they concluded, “[…]male homosexuals are much more likely to come from a family constellation involving an over intense mother and unsatisfactory father relationship.”[3] Although the parental theory is very likely, it is lacking modern research and rigorous studies. The reason this theory stopped getting attention (and therefore halted research) happened in 1973 when the APA deleted homosexuality from the Psychiatric manual. But before that date, the studies all showed a linkage to this theory [4]. Another theory is the social learning theory, which commonly means the child in question was sexually abused. The actual theory is not in question; rather it’s controversial when you apply it to homosexuality. For example, it is a fact that children will adopt behaviors from other adults and not even notice it throughout their lives. For example, I have many of the same gestures as my father and grandfather. So the actual learning theory is not controversial. But the application to homosexuality can cause a stir. The theory is not just sexual abuse, though. As children masturbating with friends or the media has been seen to cause homosexuality in adult life [4]. But there is also a link between homosexuality and sexual abuse. Many studies have found that homosexual boys that where abused are seven times more likely to become homosexual then their non-abused peers. Other studies find nearly half of gay men (46%) where abused as children, and almost a quarter of lesbians (22%) where abused as children [4]. Scientists believe this theory is a logical alternative to the biologic theories, as the existence of the theory is not in question. Whether it is valid is in little question as well. But only the application is. This theory covers the most factors of development, bullying (being bullied is linked to homosexuality [4]), interactions with peers, parental connections/actions, abuse, etc. This theory is pretty much an overall theory well supported by science. Another theory is “exotic becomes erotic”. One study notes, “Bem’s theory suggests that a child’s experience of being “different” from peers of the same gender leads to a reaction of physical arousal, which then later in life becomes translated into sexual arousal—a process he calls ‘sexual imprinting.’ ”[5] It is well known that foreign things are more exiting or luring, but to others more scary. The theory argues that the small percentage of people it draws in (the percentage needn’t be large, only 3% of the population is gay) causes people to become bisexual and homosexual. The theory is actually supported by many studies and physiatrists like Byne and Parsons. This theory is actually almost identical to the one above, as the different experience and different/exotic feeling extend to homosexuality. Therefore this theory is the exact same as above, but in a different name and different studies proving both. Conclusion: When examining the theories and evidence, it is apparent no one is “born gay”, and based on current evidence other theories are more likely. I will again bring up a quote I used in the beginning of the debate, as it fits in perfectly with my conclusion: “Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. […] In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explana­tory power of extant psychosocial models.”[1] Vote CON. Sources: [1] William Byne and Bruce Parsons, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reap­praised” _Archives of General Psychiatry, (March 1993). [2] Bailey and Pillard, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, (1991) [3] Daniel G. Brown, “Homosexuality and Family Dynamics,” Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 27 (Sept. 1963) [4] Dean Byrd “Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable? What the science can and cannot say” Liberty University Law review, Vol. 4, (Spring 2010) [5] Peter Sprigg and Timothy Dailey “Getting it straight” Washington: Family Research Council, 2004

There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. I mean its soooo obvious. ITS SO OBVIOUS. what you said about the man with the brain of a woman, that's a disorder, its not genetic. There is no confirmed or discovered gene that determines who YOU decide to be. Its somebody choosing their own lifestyle, genetics for the 5000th time cannot possibly effect sexuality. the parents of the offspring that is a homosexual, in this case, are straight, and their entire line of ancestors are straight. How come none of them are homo or some other sexual. Oh that's right, BECAUSE YOU CANT PASS DOWN A "POSSIBLE HOMO TRAIT OR GENE" DOWN TO OFFSPRING. because there isn't one and if it is, don't you think they would have found that out by now?

Sexuality is a Mental Defect The matter of sexuality boils down to the base argument of birth trait versus choice. I propose that sexuality is in fact a birth trait, and that it is a mental defect that can be linked to other mental conditions. The evolutionary purpose of sex is for reproduction. It is said humans developed their pleasure for it in order to have a year-round mating season, thus allowing more reproduction. Any form of sex that does not lead to reproduction is for pleasure, and therefor an evolutionary defect that is present in all humans. Homosexual incidents have been recorded in several animal species that do not gain pleasure from sex. This statement removes the idea that sexuality is driven from our pleasure of sex.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Hello, this is also my first debate on debate.org, and I look forward to competing as I am in my second year of varsity policy debate it will be nice to debate theory rather than fact. Where to begin. I would like to begin my argument by rebutting my advisaries argument: "Homosexuality is not a choice." A. Homosexuality is a state of mind: -In order to decide if one is a homosexual, they must first develop feelings for another person of the same sex. Most will argue that people will "hide" their true feelings by having relations with people of the opposite sex in order to stay "acceptable" to the majority of society. However, this cannot always be the case. For example: There are many women who have dated men their whole life, settle down and get married to a particular man, and during the marriage are brutally treated and beaten. After this, they divorce and are forever disdainful of men. However, being human and always seeking love and acceptance they default to finding love with other women and hence "Choose" to become homosexual. They were not hiding some innner feeling for other women, but rather seeking love in the arms of person who was not a man due to the traumatic events which she associates with men. Therefore, She made a choice to become a homosexual. B. The argument Pro is making is not about homosexuality, but rather "pan sexuality". -For this debate, I am excluding the other definitions of "Pan sexuality" for the same reasons the Pro excludes the other sexual definitions of the word "homosexuality". - Pan sexuality is the choice to love whomever an individual chooses for the sake of pursuing a happy life with a person they love. With this being said, Pro cannot argue an individuals attraction to someone of the same sex is "something they are born with" due to [1] Their incorrect definition / clarification of the word they choose to argue for it creates confusion in the theoretical discourse of the topic. [2] The actual word they are putting forth to defend, defines itself as a choice, not a trait given from birth. C. The argument the Pro is putting forth is being stated from a personal view with conditional factual definitions, therefore giving the Con the burden of proving that a person is not born with the trait of "loving someone of the same sex". -The pro must show evidence that this trait is biologically apart of an individuals person, in order to argue that this state of mind is not a choice, but rather "who they are". -The pros argument states that although one can deny being "homosexual" they still are none the less. I would like to answer this argument with my first argument relating to examples of why this cannot always be the case. And if it is not always the case, then the pro cannot imply that all homosexuals have been homosexuals since birth. In conclusion, The viewers should default to the Cons arguments as being more logically sound, more fluent and conclusive of the fact that "homosexuality" (or in this particular debate) "pan sexuality", is a choice and not a trait which individuals have since birth and choose to deny only because of society's majority view on the subject of two people of the same sex being intimate with one another.

Nobody Can Determines Someone's Sexuality. I believe that no one can determines someone's real sexuality because sexuality is just unique. Sexuality is not about black and white. Let say for example,somebody who got same-sex experience probably they are still claimed themselves as straight because they just do experience or curious. It doesn't mean you are truly gay or lesbian because you don't have any chemistry while you did it. In my conclusion, sexuality is a personal thing that only known personally. So i think people must be careful when they judge somebodies as "Gay" or "Lesbian" because what they had done.

Nobody Can Determines Someone's Sexuality. I don't really understand your argument. are you saying that sexuality just can't be as easily defined as race? If so, you kind of can. You can be straight, meaning you are attracted to the opposite sex, gay, meaning you are attracted to the same sex, bisexual, meaning you're attracted to both sexes, or gender fluid, basically meaning other. could you please clarify your position?

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.

Sexuality is a choice Contention 1- The Scientific Factor In 1990 began the Human Genome Project. It was completed in 2003, two years ahead of schedule. The purpose was not to find a gay gene in the human genome, but to identify and map out 20,000-25,000 genes in the human genome. Approxamatly 23,000 genes were identified. Not a single one was identified as a gay gene. My opponent now has the burden of proof as to whether the gay gene actually exisists Conclusion- The gay gene just does not exist so homosexuality cannot possibly be biological or genetic Contention 2- The Psychological Factor There are plenty of psychological factors in the "Is Sexuality A Choice" Debate that point to yes, it is a choice Abuse- Many people, gay and straight, have been victim of abuse as a child. This abuse can range from, mental, emotional, sexual, physical and even neglect. The responses to these forms of abuse are different from person to person. It can range from acting out violently toward the opposite or same sex, promiscuity, self abuse, and even homosexuality. In a study done by the Masters-Johnson Institute a 25 year old homosexual man revealed his first sexual experience to be with an older gay man arranged by his lesbian mother. after 3 1/2 years of treatment due to the desire to be straight, his sexual interactions were now exclusively heterosexual. Alfred Kinsey, a prominant biologist conducted many psychological tests on groups of homosexuals. One of the studies by the Kinsey Institute in 1970 showed 81% of 684 gay men and 93% of 293 lebians shifted their sexual orientation. In 1940 a study of 1700 homosexuals only 9% claimed they were born gay. In 1970 a similar percent was said of 983 homosexuals. It was not until 1983 when the gay movement really took off, that the percent of homosexuals who claimed to be born gay rose to 35% Going back to the abuse claim. A girl who identifies as lesbian says she was largely ignored by her father as a young child and now, at the age of 16, says the same thing of him She admits that while she knows he loves her, he has never actually said "I love you" or shown any kind of affection towards her. However, her mother always did. She says her mother has always stuck by her no matter what. When she was diagnosed with Juvinile Rhumadoid Arthritis, it was her mother who took her to the doctor. It was her mother who comforted her. It was her mother who took her to her check ups. Her only other role model is a lesbian woman who is best friends with her mother. She has no male role models in her life, be it significant or insignificant. It is obvious from a psychological standpoint that the girl's father neglected her need for affection but her mother did not, therefore she, from a young age, can only associate love and affection with females. Conclusion- There are many environmental factors, be it a political movement or abuse or whatever, that psychologically affect sexuality Contention 3- The God Factor If we were to exclude atheists and anyone else who does not ascribe to a belief system involving a diety, we can all agree that God loves everyone regardless, but there are also a set of rules in which we must obey set forth by this God, no matter what we call him. We must agree that this God is all powerful and does not make mistakes, We must also agree that there are many things that God does not want us to do in which we do. That does not mean He loves us less, just that we should not do it. One of those things that God tells us not to do is practice homosexuality. I do not believe that any sin is worse than the other, but this shows that God did not intend for homosexuality to be practiced, and if we agree that God does not make mistakes, we must agree that homosexuality is a choice made by man Conclusion- If we agree there is a God and we agree on His personality and heart as described by the three top religions in the world (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) we must agree that He did not intend for men and women to be gay, therefore he would not have created them to be so Contention 4- Cynthia Nixon (Psychology part 2) Cynthia Nixon, an actress, was previously married to a man. After their divorce, she started a relationship with a woman. While I cannot say whether or not this happens every day to many women, it does happen. A woman will be sexually attracted to a man then after a failed relationship or a number of failed relationships, she decides to see what a woman can do for her, both physically and emotionally. This is a sign of a conscious choice made by a person to be homosexual, whereas, the previous example I gave about the girl associating love and affection with women due to her distant father was a subconscious choice. Nixon even admitted it was a choice. Conclusion- Homosexuality can be either a conscious or subconscious choice Contention 5- Lady Gaga, Dan Savage, and the It Gets Better Movement (Psychology part 3) Lady Gaga, a popular entertainer, dropped her debut album, The Fame, in 2008. She released a song Alejandro in 2009. The song was said to be in support of gay marriage. The song was released, admittedly by Gaga, in response to her huge gay following. In The Fame, there were no gay themes to her songs. This was followed by her next album, Born This Way, which had several gay impowerment songs, including the title track, promoting the idea that a homosexual is born gay Shortly before the release of Born This Way, Dan Savage, a syndicated columnist, started the It Gets Better Movement in response to a rash of 2010 suicides of gay youth resulting from bullying. While I fully support the idea of trying to prevent more teen suicides, this movement, like Gaga, supports the idea that you are born gay and it is not a choice you have. This is an example of how propaganda can influence one to believe a certain way. Conclusion- Media propaganda can influence one to believe they are born gay I admit my final contention is probably petty, but that is not a concession. I eagerly await my opp's rebuttal, and thank her for accepting this challenge

Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' I will begin by rebutting my opponent's arguments and then re-emphasize my original points, very little of which my opponent has addressed.Twin StudiesI must clarify that identical twins are not complete clones of each other. True, they are both very similar and share a significant amount of DNA, but it must be understood that identical twins are NOT exactly the same. A study carried out in November 2012 found from 92 pairs of fetuses that identical twins have around 360 genetic differences very early in the fetus stage. This is because despite the womb's small space, the two fetuses are still exposed to different parts of the environment in the womb, creating variations. These variations include an additional X chromosome mutation in one fetus but not the other and different phenotypes (this one always occurs)I would also like to point out that in my opponent's previous argument, he states: "If one twin is gay, and the other twin is gay 50% of the time, the concordance rate is 50%, so the trait is estimated to be around 50% genetic." 50% is actually very high; fraternal twins have around 22% chance of sharing sexuality, and humans in general have around a 10% chance of being a homosexual. This essentially shows that since identical twins share homosexuality five times more than an average non-twin person does, it at the very least shows that genetics play a significant role in terms of sexual orientation.Again, my opponent makes a pseudo "God of the gaps" argument where he assumes by attacking genetics it automatically proves that homosexuality is caused by environmental factors. However, I must point out that attacking anything, whether it be genetics or hormones or something else, does not automatically substantiate your case, as science, or in this case, the science of homosexuality, is not an "if then else" statement. I do not think that homosexuality is 100% genetics, what I do believe is that homosexuality is caused by a mixture of genes and hormones. This I will elaborate on later.Gay ParentsIn my previous argument, I failed to put in several important points related to statistics. Not to worry though, I will put them here. Homosexual people make up about 10% of the global human population. As such, homosexual couples, especially homosexual couples who have kids, are not especially easy to find. In the Cameron and Cameron study, only 17 of the 5182 randomly chosen adults wrote out in the questionnaire that they had homosexual parents. This causes a very common statistical bias, which I will explain this way. Say for example you had 2 groups, group A and group B. Group A has 100 people while group B has 10. Now lets say 9 people from each group had a pet cat. The 9 people in group A only make up for 9% of the entire group, so only 9% of group A has a cat. However, 9 people in group B makes up for 90% of the entire group, so 90% of the people in group B has a cat. So essentially with the logic used by my opponent and the scientists he cited, people in group B have a higher chance of having a cat than the people in group A. This makes absolutely no sense, as both groups have the same amount of people who own a cat, it's the amount of people in each group that is different. This is the same for random sample surveys such as Cameron and Cameron. And then you have the issue of whether or not a person is willing to admit that he/she was raised by homosexuals. There are a number of areas of doubt in these types of surveys for this reason, and I highly question the credibility of them.In my opponent's second paragraph in this line of argumentation, he/she only uses child custody cases and fails to consider sperm donation or child with a previous lover(not husband/wife).My opponent's third paragraph states that since children receive 50% of genes from each parent, homosexual parents should have a 50% chance of having a homosexual child. By this logic, heterosexual parents should have a 100% chance of having a heterosexual child (both parents are heterosexual). This is obviously not the case. Reorientation Therapy"My opponent’s main argument is twofold: The APA dislikes it; The studies are flawed"I don't know from where you interpreted this from, this is not what I meant, and I must ask you to avoid trivializing my arguments based on your own whims.Therapy: treatment intended to relieve or heal a disorder.My opponent continues to insist that homosexuality can be remedied through therapy. Above is the definition of therapy. My opponent does not wish to classify homosexuality as a disease and dismisses it as an appeal to emotion, but this is simply a logical deduction, a simple one at that. Homosexuality cannot be a physical disease, as no bacteria, virus, fungus, or other outside pathogens are involved, nor is auto-immune response to blame. Thus, it should be a psychological disease, but psychologists should be able to distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals if it was, which they can't, as proved by two of the links I provided before. Therapy implies that there is something wrong with the person, and if my opponent wants to insist that reorientation therapy works then he must admit that homosexuals have something wrong with them, otherwise, he will be self-refuting.There is also no reliable evidence that suggests that such therapy actually works. In 2006 the Catholic Medical Association sourced a 1979 study which found that 70% of homosexuals were converted by therapy by William Masters and Virginia Johnson, a husband and wife team, to prove that reorientation therapy works. The credibility of this husband and wife team, however, leaves much to be desired. Masters refused to provide the evidence used to draw this conclusion when the clinic's top physician asked for tape recordings of these cases. Johnson was a self taught therapist who didn't have a college degree and mostly relied on her husband for his medical expertise. Johnson, decades later, stated that her husband might have been "a little creative" with the results at worst, or he didn't know what he was talking about at best. In my opponent's paragraph that attempts to discredit the APA's study, he/she uses a number of logical fallacies, including the assumption that "strong methodology" = "correct" and "APA uses people that support conclusion" = "bias". This is the same as saying "There was strong methodology used to determine the Earth was flat, but in came the scientific community who determined the methodologies used to prove that the Earth was flat were flawed, and they only allowed round-earth scientists to publish results, so that must equal bias." Sometimes when organizations such as the APA say something is flawed because it is flawed, not because of bias. AnimalsThe source used to substantiate this article is dripping with arrogance. It essentially says that "Humans are rational and moral creatures, animals are not, therefore animals have zero relation to humans." Not only is this logically fallacious, it is also completely and utterly wrong. To prove why this statement makes no sense, take for example a peaceful person and a serial killer. Just because one person has violent tendencies doesn't change the fact that both of them are human. Moreover, we are more similar to animals than a lot of us like to admit. We all have some form of communication. Primates are all very social animals, like us. Some primates such as chimpanzees and bonobos engage in mouth to mouth contact and oral sex. The red howler monkey screams to warn ALL animals in the vicinity that a predator is coming. Eagles are always willing to protect their chicks with their life, which is more than we can say for ourselves. Moles have a very complicated and intricate tunnel system that can be compared to our sewage and roadway systems. My point is, we are close to animals than we think, and this baseline must be established. I did not list out a lot of the animals that display homosexual tendencies, but it seems the situation requires me to. Bottolenose dolphins display distinctly homosexual behavior, with male dolphin anally penetrating other male dolphins and female dolphins nuzzling another female's vaginal area with its nose. Elephants engage in very affectionate behavior and mounting with other elephants of the same gender, and these relationships are very long term. Homosexual behavior in male giraffes was found to be more common than heterosexual behavior. The list goes on, I still have to summarize my points. As said before, gay people come in all shapes and sizes, from fat gays to skinny gays, from rich gays to poor gays, from white gays to black gays, from Christian gays to Muslims gays. If homosexuality was really environmental, all of these people should come from similar backgrounds or share similar environmental experiences. However, they obviously don't. The son of a doctor is just as likely to be gay as a son of a drug lord. The daughter of a celebrity is just as likely to be gay as the daughter of a homeless woman. But there are genetic similarities: all gay men share the same genetic signatures on part of the x-chromosome XQ28. Homosexual women are more similar to heterosexual men than they are to heterosexual woman, and the reverse is true for homosexual men. This is found in right brain size. left handedness, spatial judgement, etc. If homosexuality was really mostly environmental, then why are there so many innate anatomical traits associated with homosexuality?http://www.scientificamerican.com...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://genetics.thetech.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://science.howstuffworks.com...http://www.slate.com...

Sexuality is a choice Firstly, my opponents mentions the Human Genome Project and claims there has been no findings of a gay gene. However, recent reports say otherwise: . http://www.medicaldaily.com... Male homosexuality may actually be genetic while female homosexuality is more questionable at this point. My opponent also mentions that many people may turn to homosexuality as a result of child abuse. This is also inaccurate as statistics in the US about child abuse are estimated at 16% for male sexual abuse and 27% for female sexual abuse. Only about 1.51% of the US population identifies as homosexual. . http://www.pandys.org... More common consequences of child abuse and neglect include shaken baby syndrome(only if the child in question is a young baby obviously), impaired brain development, depression, anti-social behaviour, alcohol/drug abuse, abusive behaviour themselves, and other. . http://www.childwelfare.gov... My opponent mentions a university study about a homosexual man turning straight after therapy. He has failed to provide sources therefore we know nothing about the man. Was he displaying homosexual traits in his behaviour from a young age? Was his mother pressuring him to be homosexual from a young age? These all of course bring up another point worth mentioning. Many children from a young age show traits that are perceived as being "homosexual". Just very recently there was a five year old boy in Germany being teased for wearing dresses by his own free will. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Unless this is just a simple case of a child ignoring gender roles(which most children wouldn't really even grasp the social concepts surrounding these in the first place) it's likely he is either homosexual or transsexual. If a child was doing such things after puberty then there could be a case perhaps that homosexuality is a choice, but this boy is pre-pubescent from what I understand. As for people "switching" their orientation maybe they were never truly homosexual in the first place and maybe bisexual? However, both my opponent and I agreed that bisexuality will not be discussed in this debate. My opponent then goes on to mention how the numbers of people claiming to be born homosexual has risen over the years. One factor contributing to this could be the fact that now with homosexuality becoming more and more accepted more people are willing to be open about these kinds of things. As we all know society evolves and so do the values represented in society. Next my opponent mentions the religious perspective. It is pretty much universally accepted among all religions that God is loving. Now one may be wondering that if God is loving why would he make gay people and then condemn them? There can be a pretty simple answer to this; just like how unmarried straight people are expected to control their urges the same could be said for homosexuals as well. Maybe it's just another test from God? Lastly, my opponent mentions pop culture and it's perceived affect on gay culture. One notable example used is Lady Gaga. While she does have many songs with pro-gay messages she does represent the overall general message of just being yourself. THis is an overall positive message and shouldn't be blamed for people "becoming gay". If they did so then they wouldn't be "being themselves" as Lady Gaga says now would they? As for suicides and bullying, if one chose to be gay wouldn't they just stop being gay so the bullying would stop? Yet they don't. Why? Is it because they can't help who they're sexually attracted to? I certainly think it could be a major factor. I now hand the reins over to my opponent. Good luck in round 2!

Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice Humans cannot be born gay it is a choice. Your brain is naturally influenced to lust after your opposite gender. If being born gay was true it would have to consider being a mental disorder.

Born gay part 2 Though I agree that it should not matter how we are oriented, whether from birth or from choice, and that our access to equal rights should not be contingent on us being 'born this way,' I do believe people are born gay for this reason. If it was a choice I'm sure people would opt out. There choice to do so but statistics say people do have a choice and some peoples choice would have not chosen this for their own reasons.

There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. The evidence you had was a theory, not a proven fact. I mean its like saying that a person who is a comidian, his reason for doing so is in his genetics. It's in our instintics that every one of us, yes including the other sexuals, was to be paired with the opposite sex. If it is indeed in the genetics the why would the genetic makeup of a gay man not have the qualities of a woman. He can't reproduce if he is only attracted to men so why would his DNA make him a guy? The thing is, it doesn't make since for a GENETICALLY homosexual not be able to reproduce with other GENETICALLY homosexuals.

Sexual orientation is not a choice I'm new to debate.org, so forgive me if I make a mistake in this process. I've made multiple attempts to argue this point in person and have come unsuccessful. I have yet to hear an argument supporting that sexuality is a choice, despite my efforts. The closest I've heard has been "sexual orientation may not be a choice, but homosexual actions certainly are". I'm not trying to debate this, I'm talking about strictly sexual orientation. Considering this is a website specifically for debating, I'm assuming I will get some responses and I'm excited for it. Onto my arguments: 1. To fellow heterosexuals: When did we choose to be straight? I know, this is an extremely cliche argument and I'm sure you've all heard it. But I certainly don't remember making a decision about it. I don't think I could choose to be homosexual if I tried. When thinking of sleeping with another guy, I feel nothing but discomfort. I guess it's like trying to explain why I don't like deviled eggs. I just don't, and I can't choose to like deviled eggs. 2. There's no reason to choose homosexuality You could make the argument that it's a rebellion thing, and I'll get to that later. Let's look at all the downsides society has caused to homosexuality. Bullying, discrimination, and persecution are just a few example of what many homosexuals have to endure everyday (at least where I live, in the bible belt). Consider the case of Carlos Vigil, a 17 year old homosexual high-schooler. He took his own life after the bullying became unbearable, all because of his sexual orientation. If it's a choice, he could have just switched back, right? Before it got really bad, he could have bailed out of homosexuality while he had the chance, right? If so, why didn't he take that chance? I would think just about every homosexual in this scenario would become heterosexual, yet they don't. Why? Because they can't. They are who they are. In my school, there are two homosexual men, both very religious. Hell, on their Instagram bio they both claim "God is everything". It goes without saying that they know they are sinning, and in their own religious book, it claims that their god "hates homosexuals". These people believe they will spend an eternity suffering for the way they live, yet they don't change it. If sexuality were as easy to change as many claim, why don't they? For these reasons, I do not believe homosexuality is a way to rebel (at least not in 99.9% of cases). I don't think anybody would rebel to the point where they spend an eternity suffering, or rebel to the point where they commit suicide. 3. Homosexual stereotypes Yes, I know nowadays the default notion of stereotypes is they're hurtful and false, but I think most would agree that stereotypes come from somewhere. Many, if not the majority of open homosexuals (to my personal observations) abide to the stereotype, which involves being feminine, a higher pitched voice, a lisp (I'm not sure why this is true, but it seems to be), dramatic, extreme hand motions, etc. Obviously not all homosexuals fit this stereotype, and I'm expecting to take heat for these statements, but we all know that's the stereotype. Growing up, we all knew who the gays were, far before they came out. When they finally did, nobody was surprised. Why? Because they acted gay for years, yet they didn't want people to know. It makes sense that they act gay even when others don't know that they're gay, because that's just the way they are. I grew up with a kid who was always feminine. Our parents were friends, so I would play at his house a lot. Even before kindergarten, he played with Barbies instead of soldiers, and glittery horses instead of dragons. The games he wanted to play were foreign to me. I remember specifically "Boy by the River". He played as the girl and made my brother play as his boyfriend while I was the boy by the river. All he would do is break up with my brother and become my girlfriend (We hated this game). I always knew he was different, and he was obviously way too young to make a choice of his sexuality, but he was obviously homosexual. Fast forward 10 years, after going about that time without seeing him, he goes into my dads office and asks him to donate to his dance crew. Come to find out...he was gay. Homosexuals don't begin showing these stereotypes to make a point, that's just the way they are. 4. It happens Short point... Over 1500 species of animals have been witnessed engaging in homosexual behaviors. The society of these animals aren't advanced to the point where they need to show off to their friends or they want to rebel to their parents. It shows that it's perfectly natural to be gay, it's just uncommon. I'm sure I'm missing something, but it'll come to me at some point throughout the debate. Again, correct me if I made a mistake. Thanks!

Sexual orientation is not a choice Before I begin, I want to say I am fiercely PRO-LGBT AND HUMAN RIGHTS. Because of this I am going to ignore your first argument, and other arguments except for the second because that does not seem to go into the terms of being gay is NOT bad sort of thing. What is choice ? Choice - an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities When I was young and navive, I want to be left-handed because I was convinced that left-handed people were smarter (which is obviously not true in all cases). But, I was born right-handed, however that doesn't mean I don't have a choice. So, even though I was right-handed doesn't mean I couldn't be left-handed. Because really wanted to be left-handed. But couldn't sadly speaking. I could always fake it untiI make it. Applying, my brief anecdote to my own sexual orientation, I could want to homosexual and I could fool myself into thinking, I am gay, but I wouldn't be gay. Because I simply wasn't born that way. However that doesn't mean I don't have a choice in the matter. Just like people that don't have a choice in their sex, but do have a choice in their gender identity. We all have a choice in what we could be and who we are. This is called freedom. Or If you are simply implying that choice is the freedom to choose what we want to be or be who we are, then that's for the next round. Please clarify and be as specific as you can. I do so love a good round of wits! 😀😀😀

Resolved: Being gay is a learned behavior Being born gay is not an instinct. You are not born with the thought of loving your mother, for example. You love her because of the fact that she cares for you when you are hurt, calms you when you are angry. Love is acquired first through the process of friendship, and as you develop a strong trust and bond between yourself, then you begin to love. Any type of love is formed this way, whether it is gay love or straight love. Love is an acquired behavior, not an instinct, as love cannot be taught. If two people of the same sex meet each other and after getting to know each other slowly develop feelings for each other, then they begin to feel love. You can't fall in love with a person of the same sex once you meet them, which further supports my argument that love is an acquired behavior.

Homosexuals are born gay, have no choice See Debate: Homosexuality Sample argument: Homosexuals are born gay, have no choice Ted Olson. "The conservative case for gay marriage." Newsweek. January 12, 2010: "Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed."

Being gay is not a choice made by the individual. Seriously? For real. Are you serious? Obviously being a homosexual is a choice. No one is born gay. You said ones sexual orientation is based on their parents. You are right That doesn't mean that it is not a choice. It is their parents choice thast they make their kid gay. As for the kid. As young as 12, they know that being gay is a very controversal thing, and their parents have no right to tell them whether or not they can dig Women, or Shlongs. I am keeping this short, so heres a summary. 1. The parents decide if the parents are gay 2. The kid can decide his own sexuality 3. The parents choice doesnt matter 4. And it doesnt matter because this isnt only about children, but gayness in general 5. That being said, I know plenty of gay people who decided to be gay on their own accord.

HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE Absolutely not. There have been many studies using Identical Monozygotic twins (Monozygotic twins share 100% of their DNA) Where they see how often both Identical twins are homosexuals. The idea is that if there is a "gay gene" Both have it and both should be Gay. In one study by Peter S. Bearman of Columbia University and Hannah Bruckner of Yale University they investigated the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. What they found is that this happens less than 7% of the time[1] In the remaining 93% of the sample 1 identical twin was gay but the other was not . In another study conducted by Cornell University found that more than 70% percent of teens who said they had ever had a same-sex "romantic attraction" later told researchers that they were now exclusively heterosexual[2]. In another study Christopher Hensley an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga questioned 142 prisoners at a maximum-security facility in the South about their sexual orientation. They found that of the sample, 24 men changed sexual orientation while incarcerated. Inmates were also more than 52 times more likely to change their sexual orientation if they engaged in homosexual activity while incarcerated, supporting the social constructionist approach[3] This is just 3 examples showing that homosexuals are not born that way. I could right a statement but I figured it would work better if I just let the homosexuals tell you in they're own words. Lindsay Miller (openly lesbian) wrote an article in the Atlantic[4] where she expressed that she made the choice to be gay "I get frustrated with the veiled condescension of straight people who believe that gays can't help it, and thus should be treated with tolerance and pity. In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way. " In another article published in the BBC[5] titled "I'm gay but I wasn't born this way" a Homosexual man named Brandon Ambrosino said "People who challenge the Born This Way narrative are often cast as homophobic, and their thinking is considered backward even if they are themselves gay. I'm gay but make no mistake I wasn't born this way" From all of this I can draw only one conclusion. Homosexual behavior is a choice. Sources: [1] . https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org... [2] . https://www.lifesitenews.com... [3] . http://journals.sagepub.com... [4] . https://www.theatlantic.com... [5] . http://www.bbc.com...

Sexual orientation is not a choice First off, I don't see how any of my arguments are in the terms of "being gay is not bad sort of thing". I keep reading through my 1st, 3rd, and 4th arguments trying to figure out where you get this idea, and I can't find it. Please point it out in your next argument. What you're saying is that it is possible for it to be a choice, and yes it absolutely is. If I wanted to, I could begin pursuing men and give up women. Now that's not what I want, but I can do it. Like when I said I don't like deviled eggs; I could eat them if I wanted to, I just wouldn't enjoy it. I'm sure that there is at least somebody out there who chose to be homosexual, but just because choosing who you sleep with it possible doesn't mean you were born attracted to that gender. It's possible for me to begin sleeping with dogs, although I wouldn't enjoy it. That doesn't mean I was attracted to dogs, it just means I made a choice for whatever reason. Choice-an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities Yes, who you sleep with is a choice. But that doesn't mean when you were born, you were faced with that choice. I don't see any reason to believe it is a choice, and no reason has been presented to me, only the obvious possibility that people can sleep with who they please.

Sexual orientation is not a choice I guess I have nothing to respond to. All I can say is you're response to my second point doesn't contradict my second point. Like I said, there is no reason to choose to be homosexual, which gives good grounds that those who are homosexual did not choose that lifestyle. You're argument gave no reason anybody would choose homosexuality.

being gay has to do with genes Sure, I'll argue. As you haven't said "first round is acceptance", I'll start by making my argument. 1. Technically, the statement "being gay has to do with genes" is correct. Being gay is caused by genes, just as being bossy, loving chocolate, walking your dog and debating on internet sites are all caused by genes. Genes govern every aspect of human behaviour, because they code for the hormones that make us think and feel the way we do. The problem with your statement is that it doesn't actually tell us anything. 2. You claim that being gay is not a choice. Some gay/bi people may feel that way, but not all. Sexual preference is mostly determined by environment and experience, which makes personal choice a huge factor. Several obvious examples of this: - Paedophiles: Many paedophiles were sexually abused as children and came to associate child sexual abuse with sexual gratification, whilst scorning the idea of having sex with an adult. - Rape Victims: Rape can instill a fear of men to its victims. If this happens when the girl is still coming to terms with sex and relationships, she may develop attraction towards girls because they're the only available source of love and support. - Prison Inmates: With no women available, many otherwise-heterosexual inmates resort to same-sex relationships. - College Girls: Alcohol + Peer Pressure => Same-sex experimentation. - Married Gays: Back when being gay was taboo and IVF non-existent, gay people would marry opposite-sex partners and have children with them just like everybody else. And there are some gay men who sleep with their female friends because that's what she wants, and the emotional closeness becomes more important than the incompatible sexual orientations, thus resulting in the same scenario. 3. The Kinsey Scale ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). The terms "straight", "gay" and "bi" are exclusive and therefore misleading. The Kinsey Scale provides a more accurate representation of human sexuality, using 8 ordered categories: 0 - Exclusively heterosexual. Does not engage in "gay" acts at all. 1 - Primarily heterosexual. They probably won't do gay stuff unless they're drunk. 2 - Mostly heterosexual. They're straight, unless the other person is really, really hot. 3 - Bisexual. They have no gender preference. 4 - Mostly homosexual. Inversion of 2. 5 - Primarily homosexual. Inversion of 1. 6 - Exclusively homosexual. Inversion of 0. X - Asexual. Does not engage in sex at all. People move through these categories throughout their lives. For example: Bob is really macho during high school, and is a staunch 0. Bob gets raped and begins to question his own masculinity, but still wants to be a 0. Bob gets really drunk to drown his sorrows and ends up in bed with John, making him a 1. Bob loses his self-esteem and sleeps with any guy who asks, becoming a 3. Bob is depressed and ends up in therapy. Bob realises that he doesn't actually like guys, and works with his therapist to curb his sex and alcohol addiction, restoring him to a 1. Bob joins a fundamentalist church and marries a pretty girl, with whom he is exclusive, making him a 0 again. 4. Nobody has ever found a "gay gene". The very idea that a single gene could control sexual orientation is ridiculous. Conclusion: Human sexuality is not black and white. There are numerous factors, most of them psychological, and our preferences change as we do. Sometimes our fantasy selves and real selves have different orientations: one could fantasize about members of the same sex, yet prefer the opposite sex in real life (because fantasy and real life are very different). To claim that "being gay is not a choice" is both a very limited worldview and a highly inaccurate one.

Sexuality is a Mental Defect In this case, I do agree with my opponent to some degree in that sexuality is a birth trait, however, I do not agree that is a "mental defect" as my opponent so blatantly put it. I propose that there is a biological component to sexuality, however it is not a choice, and is not just a LGBTQI thing, this is a human thing, a biological human trait. Sexuality is about so much more than just sex. Sexuality also encompasses how one feels about their body, their biological sex, one's gender, one's gender identity, one's sexual orientation, one's sexual behaviors, one's values and attitudes toward sexual relationships, and any desires or fantasies or sexual preferences. This also does not include just the LGBTQI community; this also includes heterosexual individuals. Sexuality is a human trait; it is a part of everyone's life to some degree. The DSM-IV, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders which is produced by the American Psychiatric Association, defines a mental defect as, "mental retardation, brain damage or other biological dysfunction that is associated with distress or disability causing symptoms or impairment in at least one important area of an individual's functioning." However, with sexuality, we cannot classify it as a "mental defect" as everyone has or identifies with at least one, if not all, components of sexuality, which I defined above, and sexuality is not a dysfunction, nor does it impair at least one important area of an individual's functioning. Therefore, I propose that because sexuality is a HUMAN trait and it does NOT interfere with an individual's functioning in one important aspect of that individual's life, we absolutely CANNOT classify it as a "mental defect."

There's no such thing as being born GAY! You claim "epi-marks" are the reason people are born homosexual but these "epi-marks" only control how genes are expressed which in retrospect makes Homosexuality in a sense a genetic issue. If you do your research it says that scientists "THINK" they may have figured out what makes "SOME" people GAY not all. SO what that means is that scientists are clueless, cannot prove definitively that these "epi-marks" are without a doubt the exact accurate cause of same sex orientation; in other words they still don't know. At best the "epi-mark" justification is none other than an educated guess. Also the report in the Chicago-sun Times excludes "ALL" GAY people and uses the term "SOME" which leaves out a number of exempt Homosexuals with no scientific, genetic or biological explanation for being GAY. This causes a problem because the article in the Chicago-sun Times does not have an explanation for the other homosexuals not related to the "epi-mark" conjecture so I guess these Gays fall through the cracks of confusion. Second you specifically stated verbatim that "No families or ancestors were GAY because IT WAS NOT COMMON." What you said proved a major point in conjunction with behavioral science. The "HERD INSTINCT" or "HERD MORALITY" as defined in Wikipedia describes how "individuals in a group can act together without planned direction." Modern psychological and economic research has identified herd behavior in humans to explain the phenomena of large numbers of people acting in the same way at the same time. Being GAY is none other than an example of "HERD BEHAVIOR" it is not genetic, biological, psychological or hereditary. As society shifted from old-school values and conservative traditions we entered into an era where the world and the lifestyles of people evolved and drastically changed as they always do. You also stated that homosexuality was looked down upon but the problem with that statement is that it neither proves or disproves whether family members or ancestors were or were not GAY... All that proves is that it was less liked by society so that is not even worth commenting on. Third you tried to make a point that animals have displayed same-sex characteristics among one another but you did not specifically define these characteristics so that statement is moderate and ambiguous. Also these "Same-sex" behaviors expressed in animals by researchers, zoologists, and scientists alike have determined it to be demonstrations of platonic courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting; also the motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied which leads us back to the merry-go-round of constant guessing and justification but no definitive proof of anything. Fourth you incriminated yourself and possibly damaged any legitimacy for your own debate by several remarks that you made. First you said verbatim that "there is no way to prove someone went from being gay to straight, and was scientifically proven to be a homosexual. You cannot prove that someone decides to be gay and go straight on their own free will." If you cannot prove that someone is specifically homosexual then neither can you prove what makes a person homosexual. Also as you put it "nor can you prove that someone was gay and was actually straight," so if you can't prove a person is actually STRAIGHT how then can you prove a person is actually GAY???? Lastly I admit that heterosexual people party, have fun, dress up and enjoy life just like GAY people do but Homosexuality is a movement and it's all about PRIDE! Homosexuality is all about living life a certain way while Heterosexuality needs no Parades, sympathy, community or organizational support, representation or international acknowledgment. Homosexuality has become a side-show and a major trend in the last couple decades. There are entire cities, major parts of countries, large communities and heavily populated areas where homosexuals frequent and abide regularly and because of this it is impossible to say that people are born GAY. There are sooooo many GAY people that it would have to mean that every single person in the entire world would literally have to carry this inborn trait. To say people are born GAY you would have to affirm sympathy for pedophiles and grant them the same clemency and extenuation not limited to but including scam artists, thieves, rapists, bigots and just about any other human being that makes a personal choice but wants the world to believe that they were born this way and maybe when Hell freezes over we will all find "epi-marks" to justify these things too and then we can let every person on earth out of prison and the world will be a much happier place!!!

people are born gay First I would like to begin my final statement by saying I have enjoyed this debate and think that you put up a good counter argument, and ultimately I think it is up to the voter to decide who had a better argument. I would like to make it clear to the voters to leave any bias or personal opinions out of there decision and to read both arguments and make a decision on who had a better argument. In conclusion, I think people are gay by choice to an extent, that being I believe that the environment you are raised in and what you are taught to believe from a young age will play a role in which sexual orientation you choose. However no person is forced to be gay, there are many cases in which people who have said they are gay later say they are straight also if you say people are born with sexual preference you would also be saying that people are born interested in certain fetishes or kinks which is impossible because these are things created by society. Similar to how you could say people are not born Catholic or Jewish they are raised in families and in an environment which makes them that way. By being raised to believe something you generally are more inclined to lean in that direction when choosing between other religions. Think about how difficult it is for someone immigrating to another country to accept that countries customs, when people are brought up to believe something it is difficult to embrace change. However it is never impossible to choose to be part of a different culture or group of people it is always an individuals choice. When a baby is born do you think at birth a girl is going to be interested in purses, clothes, dolls etc. and all the other things that are society has come to associate with a female. People are born with a blank slate, they are not born evil or good nor are they born gay or straight this is something society created. Society also created the institution of marriage and they defined the difference between a masculine and feminine. In Ancient Greece men had sex with each other and were taught at an early age that this was normal men had sex with other men because they viewed woman as slaves and in there society to have sex with a man was almost a holy event. When a child is born they do not understand the difference between a boy or girl all they know is what they are told and what they see, hear and smell by that I mean what they view as normal is what society teaches them to be normal. You mentioned how family members sometimes share traits, This is because they are part of the same family and the same distinct blood line. Also there is no proof to show that there traits are simply coincidently similar and therefore this is not a viable argument. "taste buds"? the food all tastes the same regardless, weather you enjoy the taste or not is something that varies from person to person. The reason it varies is because the way food tastes is all about mind set if I had not eaten for days and I was giving a food which I normally hate to me it would probably taste like the greatest thing ever. From a young age we are taught that candy taste good and vegetables and fruit are terrible the reason for this is mind set. When you are very young every cartoon depicts vegetables as being a terrible tasting menace that is truly vomit worthy, for example I hardly ever ate vegetables at a young age simply because I assumed it tasted terrible. Also the reason people are so unique is because all people are raised in very different environments and have different experiences which make them unique. Imaging a white board which represents to newborns minds now 2 lines are being drawn in the same direction one green one red for everything that they do differently the line bends and swerves now imaging how distant those lines would be by the age of 1 think of how different there lives may have been up to that point. People are not born unique it is there life experiences that make them that way all people are born with a blank slate. For this reason I think it is truly a matter of coincidence in which someone ends up choosing to be homosexual or whatever sexual orientation they choose. If when we where born we where immersed in a world where being bisexual was normal don't you think must people would be bi and see nothing odd about that? I thank you on being a good competitor and wish you good luck!

Bisexual Yes, because we're born to be bisexual, it's normally. All the women as well as men could have relationships with the same sex people. What's really important is that you do love. Doesn't matter whom.

Sexuality is a Choice My opponent claims that a person's sexuality, that is to say the trigger of sexual feelings is decided by deliberate choice. Decide to be gay, and you will find yourself feeling sexual desire for people of the same gender. I have argued consistently that is utterly false. The following arguments spring to mind, I, nor anyone else can remember a previous asexual period where we made a cold calculating deliberate choice to establish our sexuality. From what I can tell from personal experience sexual feelings arose unbidden. My opponents argument denies the existence of homosexuals who are wracked by fear or guilt and so keep their sexuality hidden. If sexuality was a choice why would they just select one more pleasing to their friends, family, or society. If sexuality were a choice might not certain liberally minded people chop and change on a whim, or choose permanently to be bisexual to experience as much as possible? What of paedophiles who are able to understand that their sexuality is 'wrong' and so demand treatment, or beg not to be released at the end of their sentence. If sexuality were a choice why not simply choose one more becoming? My opponent however is adamant that sexuality is a choice, so I look forward to his argument and rebuttal.

The gay alelle IntroductionThe premise of this debate is that genes effect behavior, a concept which is not as well supported as my opponent would have us believe. Certainly it is possible that genes can have an influence on the mental capacity and emotional demeanor of a person, but to attribute abnormal sexual orientation solely to genetics is quite unfounded. Dr. Dean Hamer, author of the so-called "gay gene" study has concluded, "Homosexuality is not purely genetic. . .environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. . ." (1). The problem with such a claim is the staggering complexity of genomic processes and the numerous variable environmental factors which may play a role in human behavior. According to Stanford professor of cognitive neuroscience J. J. Wine, ". . .no link has been established between the vast majority of genes and any psychological property. . ." no doubt due to the difficulties in tracing behavioral traits to an isolated gene or set of genes (2). Upon reviewing the relevant literature, law professor Lynn Wardle concludes, ". . .the knowledge base regarding the etiology of homosexuality-especially claims of biological immutability-is too immature and unsettled. . ." (1). With all that said, Pro must provide striking conclusive evidence that homosexuality is indeed caused by a "gay allele" which is turned on. Although unnecessary to win this debate, as it hinges on the efficacy of genes alone to determine behavior, I will provide some contributing factors to the phenomenon of human homosexuality.Traumatic Child AbuseSexually abused children are known to exhibit a number of psychological abnormalities as a consequence of their trauma, some of which include, ". . .damage to the victims' emotional reactions and self-perceptions, relationship problems, problems with sexuality and difficulties in social functioning" (3). It is easy to see how sexual abuse can cause a misappropriation of sexual attraction and confusion of sexual identity. According to chief of Child and Family Studies Centre, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry Dr. Joseph H. Beitchman, ". . .evidence suggests that sexual abuse is an important problem with serious long-term sequelae. . ." including ". . .sexual disturbance or dysfunction, homosexual experiences in adolescence or adulthood. . ." (4). I am in no way claiming that all homosexuality is the result of sexual abuse, rather I am simply arguing that it is well documented that such abuse in children can result in abnormal sexual feelings and/or behavior.Social DevelopmentResearch has indicated that sexual orientation ". . .emerges from an interaction between sex drive development and social development during early adolescence" (5). With an influx of sexualized media and increasing social acceptance of homosexuality as normal or even desirable, it is clear to see that young children and teenagers developing in such a social environment are more readily apt to not become unsure of their sexual identity and to experiment sexually with others of the same sex. Simple differences in human personality or behavior may be interpreted as homosexual and may even be encouraged as such. This reinforcement of homosexuality can certainly be a primary contributing factor to the development of homosexual feelings and/or behavior in adolescents today. Social constructs of what is "straight" and what is "gay" run deep and, for example, a simple boy's preference for certain colors or fashion styles may be interpreted as gay and reinforced as such. This social programming can pressure one to identify as homosexual and/or may cause one to find it easier to "go with it." A "coming out of the closet" study found that, "Comfort with sexual orientation was greatest in persons with early patterns and lowest within the group with late trajectories and limited gay/lesbian/bisexual social immersion" (6). It is worth noting that, "committed homosexuals, lesbians, and gay males who see themselves as homosexual and adopt corresponding lifestyles, recall having acquired their homosexual identities" (7) [emphasis mine]. Given that sexually feelings or perceptions are not quantifiable and that the development of such is only made known upon a child or teenagers ability to comprehend their own sexual identity, social development must be considered as a primary causal factor. The Problem in Defining HomosexualityThe very concept of homosexual identity itself is unclear and many different views have been argued such as, "The synonymity of homosexual identity and self-concept: homosexual identity as childhood identity; homosexual identity as sexual identity; and homosexuality as a distinct essence" (8). It seems that if homosexuality is based upon a self-evaluation of one's own sexuality and thus subjective in nature, it cannot possibly be argued that homosexuality is a fixed outcome of genetic pre-disposition. Thus an adequate definition of homosexual identity is in order which sufficiently addresses this concern.ConclusionThe claim that a certain allele confers a propensity for homosexual feelings and/or behavior is speculative at best. It is certain that social development plays a crucial role in the formation of both sexual identity and behavior. Sexual abuse during childhood can also be a causal agent for the proliferation of homosexuality. The very idea of an immutable proclivity toward homosexuality is in serious question and thus awaits a profound and unequivocal vindication in the form of demonstrable scientific evidence.References1 - http://via.library.depaul.edu... 2 - http://web.stanford.edu... 3 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... 4 - http://www.sciencedirect.com...;5 - http://psycnet.apa.org... 6 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... 7 - http://www.tandfonline.com... 8 - http://www.tandfonline.com...

People are born gay 1st round acceptance, con state your case.

There's no such thing as being born GAY! People claim they are born gay I think it's absolute BS! If that's the case I can be a pedophile and be sexually attracted to children and use the same cop-out that I was born this way and have a genetic disposition to be attracted to minors!

people are born gay Con In recent years we have witnessed a lot of arguments over the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. However I feel like people are not paying enough attention to the real debate at hand are people born gay? main debate points to discuss A)Society dictates how the majority of people interact with one another sexually and non sexually. B)at birth a child does not understand the difference between male and female nor the complexity of a modern day relationship. C)before a children reaches puberty there are no distinctive exterior differences between males and females, except the way they dress and the image they portray. the "image" is also dictated by society for example if a group of 6 year olds all cut there hair short and dressed in the same clothes could you tell the difference. D)the world would be a better place if we accepted the fact that being gay is a choice E)homosexuality is a freak idea created by society because the whole basis of it is on the principles of gender stereotypes if a boy likes the color pink for example it does not mean that he is gay. Note I am not anti-gay in my opinion it is your choice however, I am against the way our society currently views homosexuals, they are not accepting them but they are making an excuse for there homosexuality by saying that people are born gay. This is a bad thing for are society because it makes being gay seem like an abnormal condition that mutates a gene. In my opinion I think it would be better if we just agree that it is an individuals choice to be gay. This would be better for society because people would over time become more accepting of homosexuals, just as people have become more tolerant for the most part of other religious groups. Forcing people to accept homosexuals by using the excuse that they are born that way and that you must accept them is not a solution.

People can be born Homosexual. My opponent claims: "Its imposable to be born as anything." This is in fact false. You are born female or male. Now the reason I say people can be born to be homosexual is because their is a disorder called hermaphrodite. A Hermaphrodite can be defined as: "an individual in which reproductive organs of both sexes are present. Compare pseudohermaphrodite." or "combining two opposite qualities. " *a person having both male and female sexual characteristics and genital tissues When people with this disorder are born, they can be sexually confused. They are born with man and women traits, resulting in the fact they may be attracted to their own sex. So, if they are born male and female, they would be attracted to a gender, causing them to be homosexual since they are women/man. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com...

People can be born Homosexual. Aw, sad to see him FF. I will continue with another point. Not only is there a disorder called Hermaphrodite which is, a person having both male and female sexual characteristics and genital tissues, there is another disorder called Klinefelter syndrome which is common in males. Klinefelter syndrome is a syndrome is a genetic disorder that affects males. Klinefelter syndrome occurs when a boy is born with one or more extra X chromosomes. Most males have one Y and one X chromosome. Having extra X chromosomes can cause a male to have some physical traits unusual for males. Many men with an extra X chromosome are not aware that they have it, and they lead normal lives. Males who have Klinefelter syndrome may be described as X-Y males or males with X-Y syndrome. Klinefelter syndrome occurs in about 1 out of 1,000 males. The symptoms are: Many men who have Klinefelter syndrome do not have obvious symptoms. Others have sparse body hair, enlarged breasts, and wide hips. In almost all men the testicles remain small. In some men the penis does not reach adult size. Their voices may not be as deep. They usually cannot father children. But they can have a normal sex life. As you can see, men with this disorder become sexually confused because they are male, but develop female traits to, causing confusion. Source: http://www.webmd.com...

Sexuality is a choice For anyone who is wanting to call me out for not posting links about gender identity disorder here are two, one reputable, one not as much as the other: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.webmd.com... I have your arguements and my new post side by side so it is easier for me to hit each point in order Of course her analogy about her and dogs does not mean all dogs would tear her face off. However, as I have mentioned in an earlier argument, my friend's closest relationships are with her mom and her mom's best friend (who happens to be a female as well). My friend whom I mentioned is unable to make the connection between love and men. That doesnt mean that a man couldnt love her. Your personal relationships shape and mold your veiws of the same sex, the opposite sex, and the whole world as well. There have been studies shown that children with absent and even distant fathers are more likely to identify as gay/lesbian. At this point my computer is not cooperating with me so I am forced to give up trying to post links to similar studies. I refuse to concede on account of my computer being an jerk I acknowledged that a Christian group would be biased, but the point I was trying to make was if the studies were found by men who were not Christian, how can it truely be biased? I admitted to not know much about Isay, however upon doing research on him for this debate, I learned he died in June of this year at the age of 77. http://en.wikipedia.org... Two of his books, Being Gay and Becoming Homosexual were written in 1989 and 1996 respectively. This is before homosexuality had even started to become as accepted as it is currently in America. How can my opp argue that Freud felt pressure by his society to become straight when Isay embraced his homosexuality before homosexuality became PC? I'd also like to point out again that Freud made more significant contributions to the fields of psychology and psychoanalysis as a whole than Isay. Conclusion- Both Freud and Isay lived in times where homosexuality was demonized but one was able to decide it was not a good choice to be homosexual and the other felt the opposite As far as the Gender Identity Disorder argument, some people would consider homosexuality to be under the scope of GID. I believe there is no such definition as laid out by the DSM-IV, APA, or Diagnostic and Statisical Manual for Mental Disorders. As such stated above, I must call my opp out for putting words in my mouth. I never said I wanted to call Homosexuality a mental disorder. I said whether she and any proponents of homosexuality being inborn would be more comfortable calling it a mental disorder than a choice. This may have been a rhetorical question, but I really am curious what she has to say on that question I posed in my last argument. Also, on the topic of God, my opp never answered my question. My question was, if Homosexuality is a test from God, wouldn't it, like all temptation, be a choice to give into or not? Please answer this. I have seen no answer or attempt at refutiation I may have to be more clear. When I said there were societal and environmental factors in which encourage people to come out, I was also trying to convey that those same societal and environmental factors influence them to say their homosexuality was not a choice. I was about to concede my opps point about Born This Way after i read the lyrics. Then I read them. And took an arrow to the knee. There is infact mention of African Americans, Asian, and Lebanese. But the mentions are so few it gets lost in the obvious gay propaganda. I also think that comparing one's skin color or nationality to one's sexuality is not fair. Race and nationality are not something one can choose. That is pretty much universally accepted. Again, my opp didn't even attempt to answer my question. She asked why would someone not change their sexuality if they were being bullied about it. I asked why would they want to? A perfect example I could give is my own. I get constantly rideculed for going to strip clubs by my sisters, mother and father. It would be my choice to stop. By why would I want to if it made me happy? I could easily stop. But why? Now I may have tougher skin than the gay kids who get bullied for being gay, but that changes nothing. I apologize for my computer not wanting to cooperate with me on finding those statistics in the earlier arguement I made of this round about familial relations and homosexuality. If I have the ability to I will provide them in my closing arguments. I would implore my opp to answer fully the questions in which I posed to her. Good luck! final round's coming up soon

The sexuality of parents has no effects on a child's future life . American Psychological Association (Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children) "There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children"; and "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."

Homosexuality is not a choice. "Most will argue that people will "hide" their true feelings by having relations with people of the opposite sex in order to stay "acceptable" to the majority of society" I do not believe my opponent can generalise most people"s views in this case. In regards to my debater"s point about a women being beaten and then choosing to become homosexual as a result of such abuse " I have never heard a homosexual person tell me that they chose to change their sexuality as the result of abuse. Fearing members of the opposite sex does not cause homosexuality, and I have never heard of such a case. If it does indeed exist, it does not account for the majority of the homosexual population. It is also rather insulting to suggest that homosexuality is the result of abuse from the members of the opposite sex. Such examples should not be used in serious debates. In regards to my debater"s comment about pansexuality: I am arguing about homosexuality, and not pansexuality. To clarify on the matter, however, I would argue that pansexuality was not a choice. I am dating a pansexual, and am aware that they have the potential ability to fall for and have sexual feelings for a person regardless of sex or gender. As my girlfriend puts it "it"s hearts, not parts". As aforementioned, I believe sexuality is not a choice. My argument still stands. Sexuality is the ability to have feelings for people. It is not a choice. "-The pro must show evidence that this trait is biologically apart of an individuals person, in order to argue that this state of mind is not a choice, but rather "who they are". -The pros argument states that although one can deny being "homosexual" they still are none the less. I would like to answer this argument with my first argument relating to examples of why this cannot always be the case. And if it is not always the case, then the pro cannot imply that all homosexuals have been homosexuals since birth." Here I must acknowledge some mistakes in my opponent"s logic and understanding of my argument. I am not stating that homosexuality is definitely a biological trait. There may or may not be a "homosexual gene" but this is diverting from the debate. I am stating that homosexuality is not a choice. Homosexuality may be the result of a predisposition as a result of environmental and/or biological factors. I need not provide evidence that suggests behaviour is nature or nurture. That is an entirely different argument. In regards to my opponent"s comment on not always being homosexual: we cannot know this for certain. We may state that sexuality occurs when one becomes pubescent, however I shall look to my previous point: we do not know if sexuality is nature or nurture. It does not matter when a person realises their homosexuality. This is not the issue. The issue here I must address is that homosexuality is never a choice. I would like to remind my fellow debater that this topic specifically regards homosexuality, and not pansexuality. They are two different sexualities and I would much appreciate that the debate stays on topic.

people are born gay Let me ask a clarifying question. By "predisposition" do you mean that they have a certain likelihood to be gay, or do you mean it's more or less CERTAIN that they'll be gay? To make it more concrete, say a child is born. Would it make sense to you to say that the child might end up either straight or gay, but the odds are 70% towards gay? (weak version) Or do you mean it more like the child is pretty much 100% going to go straight or gay, and which one is already determined? (strong version) If you take the weak version position, you might want to reset the debate. I don't intend to dispute that. If you take the strong version position, then it'll be a pleasure to debate you.

born a way are you also saying that your not born with a personality??? none of my family members or friends are trans or gay and I have always been gay. Yes it's in the genes Most homosexual people are in fact born that way, others may pick to be gay or have things that occur during their life that takes them that direction sexually. There is so much proof that people are born gay these days that people that do not believe it really just have their heads stuck in the sand, we need to be more open and loving to everyone's sexual desires as long as they are legal. Only straight people don't think so. The only people who ever argue that you aren't born gay, but get 'seduced' into the lifestyle are people who say they are straight. Since they aren't gay.

Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' Twin studies My opponent claims twins are not identical. Although this is true, it is incorrect to simply wave away the entire argument. Separated twin studies and traditional twin studies often have the same results, suggesting twins are genetically similar enough in order to garner significant results [1]. Twin studies have also found genetic effects/environmental effects (which are well accepted) in the medical field, such as dyslexia and arthritis. They also have found height, eye color, autism, etc. [2] So this cannot simply be waived because a few differences can be found. I must also note 50% genetic is considered a ‘moderate’ effect. Again, to put it into perspective, the concordance rates for heterosexuality are 98%. Now if we assume twins have a 22% chance of a concordance rate, which means homosexuality is 22% genetic. This is a weak effect. And it fails to take into account the placenta effect which I described last round, which reduces the genetic effect by 15%. So the actual effect is 7%--or, in other words, very little genetic component. And my opponent does not understand what concordance is. Concordance is only how often if one twin is gay the other one is gay—not how common homosexuality is. Regardless, the 10% number is total baloney—surveys pin the number at around 3.4% [3]. That number is based upon small non-random surveys in the 40s. Twins are likely gay at about the same rate (out of 100 twins 3 will be gay). If concordance rate is 10%, chances are in a sample of 100 none of the other children will be gay (only 3 out of all of them, 0 concordance). Also note I never said the concordance rate was 50%, I merely gave an example. I pinned the number down at about 11%, a minimal effect. Gay Parents 10% of the population is not homosexual. My opponent is relying upon extremely weak data in the 40s and acting like it has not been refuted. The best surveys find the prevalence of homosexuality to be at 1-3.4%, not 10%. Now his criticism of the study is valid, but he drops so much evidence. He drops at least 10 studies summarized by Schumm, some using large random sample sizes, other using small sample sizes, all finding children of gay parents are more likely to be gay. Now to say people will not say they were raised by gay parents on a survey has no warrant—it is merely a hypothetical. My opponent throughout the debate relies on hypotheticals, whereas I am relying on hard data. So he would have to prove why, on an anonymous survey, to researchers they don’t know, why they would lie. And, again, it ignores the fact I cited a wealth of other research which he conveniently chooses to ignore. Due to the fact no data that I know of tells us how often IVF occurs, we cannot assume gay people usually do this. A hypothetical with no proof. I made a simple comparison. Assuming homosexuality was 100% inborn, this would be the case. But it isn’t. And, as environmental factors determine homosexuality, we could not assume 100% of those raised by straight people would be straight. The fact—from dozens of studies—that gay parents are likely to raise gay children has not been refuted. One study has been responded to. To reiterate, a large study by Schumm expanding the Cameron dataset, the Morrison dataset, obtaining more anecdotal cases (separate dataset), and an anthropological dataset all found the same conclusion: being gay varied significantly based upon your parental environment, and varied significantly culture to culture [4]. Reorientation therapy My opponent says he didn’t say this. Ok. Prove that you didn’t. Your entire argument was based upon critiques of a few studies and citing an APA report. Pretty sure my summary of your argument is valid. My opponent relies upon semantics. Who cares if it is a disease. We are not debating ‘homosexuality is a mental disorder’. We are debating ‘Are homosexuals born that way’. So the only thing about the research I noted is simple: homosexuality is fluid, mutable, and changes. Genetic/hormonal behaviors do not change, therefore homosexuality is not inborn. Whether or not it is a disease or even should be treated is irrelevant. The fact is therapy causes them to change. Stop playing semantics on the word therapy. Further, R1 states “No trolling, semantics, stuff like that.” Thus, my opponent actually breaks a rule and concedes. Now my opponent says there is no evidence. He ignores everything I said. Who cares about the Catholic Medical association—I didn’t cite them. The 1979 study? I didn’t cite it, I cited 1970s meta-analysis in conjunction with newer ones (to prove the state of the science is unchanged). So again, this is irrelevant. It must be noted what my opponent said is not a ‘logical’ fallacy. He is saying I am using faulty logic, but that isn’t a fallacy. But I digress, let’s look at his criticism. He essentially admits my studies have strong methodologies, but refuses to accept them as correct. It must be noted there was actually no methodology proving the earth was flat. Strong methodologies and observations, however, prove it is round (and proved it was round in the past) [5]. Most others thought it was flat due to religion or based their observations around a flat earth, assuming a round earth was impossible. My opponent really fails to refute my point as the flat earth analogy does not apply well. As he provides no strong counter evidence—and no new arguments can be brought forth last round (usually)—he essentially concedes I provide strong evidence and instead relies upon a fallacy. Which one? The fallacy of false analogy. So, ironically, it is my opponent, not me, relying upon fallacious argumentation. Gay Animals My opponent argues first with my source—not with what I said. Thus, it is a red herring. And my opponent notes a lot of similarities. Cool. But I cited monkeys—closest living relatives—and show how their sexuality varies greatly from ours in other respects [6]. Due to the fact sexuality—something we are debating here—greatly differs tells us a lot. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest heterosexuality as well may not even be inborn [7]. Thus, as animals have differing environments in regards to heterosexuality and homosexuality, the fact gay animals exist is not something which harms my case. I must also point out my opponent ignores the evidence showing animals—like rams—are gay through environmental changes [8]. Thus, there is no reason to believe other animals who engage in homosexuality are not homosexual due to environmental forcings. This is something my opponent has ignored. So even assuming all of these animals are really ‘gay’, it does not mean they are born that way. Indeed, Penguins often have long gay relationships—like elephants. However, a Penguin relationship (which was gay) lasted 6 years. It was trumpeted how being gay is natural. But they broke up—and one of the penguins is heterosexual [9]. Homosexuality—even in the animal kingdom—seems to be fluid, in other words, not inborn. I will say my opponent’s arguments in relation to monkey’s is interesting. But engaging in oral sex is not a strong relationship, really. They have mouths like ours and all animals like sexual pleasure. The fact they figured out putting their mouth down there and it feels good does not mean they are genetically similar. In fact, that is an environmental factor! Dolphins having sex may also be a non-genetic thing. Indeed, although many claim dolphins are bisexual and often exclusive heterosexuality, there is no proof of this. Claims of dolphin homosexuality stem from misrepresentation of a study, which said the word ‘bisexual’, but the way it was used only meant male and female dolphins (bisexual) continue to live near their birthplace [10]. Thus, the ‘gay dolphin’ argument is not really true and is often misinterpreted behavior. Essentially, animals have sex in a similar way rapists do. Often to display power. Or to avoid conflict, or for other, non ‘gay’ reasons [11]. So the fact homosexual behavior exists is not a strong argument suggesting animals are born gay, but that they engage in homosexual behavior. Even in animals with long term relationships, one or both of the partners seem to break apart and become either asexual or heterosexual. Even in the animal kingdom, as sexuality is fluid, not inborn. Summary? My opponent’s points were refuted in R1 (e.g. what environmental factors cause homosexuality). To say being gay only exists in the same environment is to not understand how sexuality develops. Merely because something may increase the chance of homosexuality occurring does not mean it will always cause it to occur. I noted in R1 there are dozens of possible environmental factors—some of which likely exist in every society. Areas with more of these factors (e.g. urban areas) were more likely to produce homosexuals. If it was inborn, this would not occur. I also noted how the level of homosexuality in different societies varies greatly, indicating environmental factors do play a role. My opponent’s case was already refuted. The XQ28 is essentially refuted under twin studies. If little genetic effect is detected, that gene cannot play a large role in the development of homosexuality. So any ‘look at this gene!’ studies are refuted under twin studies. It must be noted my opponent has not offered one study under twin studies proving his point—and if he does, he breaks a rule accepted on the website (no new arguments last round). The brain studies are bunk. They compare gay people with AIDS to straight people. AIDS actually changes the hypothalamus region which is supposedly changed due to homosexuality. Further, as the brain changes with use and environmental factors [12], it does not prove being gay is inborn. Only 3% of left handed people are gay (compared to 2% of the total population—or even 3% in the survey cited earlier) suggests the effect is only 0-1% [13]. The relationship has almost no effect. Vote Con. http://tny.cz...

homosexuality equals a genetic disorder A genetic disorder.... let's define that. "A genetic disorder is a genetic problem caused by one or more abnormalities in the genome, especially a condition that is present from birth (congenital). Most genetic disorders are quite rare and affect one person in every several thousands or millions." A lot of people are always questioning their sexuality. Some people even think they're attracted to women before even finding out that they're actually gay. You are born with a genetic disorder. We are scared with what we don't understand. Blue eyes weren't even a thing until approximately 7,000 years ago. Would you call that a genetic disorder? No. But it's possibly as common as homosexuality. I found out I was bi sexual about a year ago. I didn't know I was until I found myself attracted to a girl and then later got together with her, finding out that I liked it. I am 13 now and can still say that I'm happy with that. Does that mean I have a genetic disorder? If you're born with a genetic disorder, people find out that you have it and it's usually noticeable. Love is something that you feel not something that's necessarily visible unlike actual genetic disorders.

There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. My evidence is statistical analysis that shows sharing specific genes increases the probability that you will find the same sex attractive. The topic of the debate was not that sexual orientation is 100% determined by genetics but that genetics do infact play a role which is demonstrable by the evidence I gave. I would like to point out that my opponent has done nothing to show the evidence is in error. [b]"It's in our instintics that every one of us, yes including the other sexuals, was to be paired with the opposite sex."[/b] This statement is very vague, if the claim is that as a matter of instinct we are [u]all[/u] attracted to the opposite sex then this is demonstrably false....as gay people actually exist. [b]"If it is indeed in the genetics the why would the genetic makeup of a gay man not have the qualities of a woman.[/b] Sexual orientation and sexual Identity are two separate issues. There are men with gender identity disorder(brain of woman, feels like they're a woman) who are only attracted to woman. Likewise there are masculine men that are attracted to other men. I would like to point out you never explained why genetics playing a role in sexual orientation would necessary require that gay man would have the qualities. [b]"He can't reproduce if he is only attracted to men so why would his DNA make him a guy?"[/b] Homosexuals are not sterile. [b]The thing is, it doesn't make since for a GENETICALLY homosexual not be able to reproduce with other GENETICALLY homosexuals.[/b] Con never explains this statement, just merely asserts it. The majority of con's points are non sequitur and are borderline incoherent. He has done nothing to counter the strong link between genetics and sexual orientation I have provided.

It is a choice to be gay or straight. Nope. The BOP is on whoever makes the positive claim, regardless of whoever makes the first one. I'm arguing that sexual preference is based on genetics and the environment we're raised in, and you're asserting that it's by choice. If anything, the opposite of why you've said it true- If I can prove that it's genetic based in a situation then it would tell how the resolution's false, and you would lose as you're playing Pro. Arguments: A study showed that: "evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved"[1] It also declares the mechanics behind the study: "A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight" It isn't what completely determines though. Genes only account for 40% of sexual preference. There is literally no evidence supporting the claim that it's a choice, so the other part is how you're raised. Thanks. [1] http://www.theguardian.com... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

Being gay is not a choice. Thanks for the challenge. Clarifications: I'll reject my opponent's definition of homosexuality in favor of the medical definition, which is: sexuality directed toward someone of the same sex [1].The medical definition of sexuality is: pertaining to, characterized by, involving, or endowed with sex or the sex organs and their functions [2]. With those proper clarifications, we can see how one can posses sexuality without ever being sexually active. In other words, sexuality (and homosexuality) is largely in part determined by nature in addition to nurture. Because our sex organs, sex functions and sexual behaviors and attractions can all be attributed to neurological going-ons of the brain, then clearly one can be born predisposed to homosexuality. Science: A plethora of scientists believe that there are genetic contributions to one's sexuality, and even the Evangelical scientists who believe that it might not necessarily be a gay gene that's responsible acknowledge that there are still biological factors which contribute to one's sexual identity. Here are just some of many examples supporting my case [3], [4], [5]. Of couse further debate and clarification can be discussed upon request. However, I'm assuming that my opponent is reasonable enough to understand that sex and sexuality are obviously linked to the brain. Arguments: So onto the debate. Con's argument is that one can choose to be gay (option 1) or choose from a handful of other options to avoid their sexuality. I will present the following options and dismantle every single so-called choice that my opponent presents: 2. Suicide A) As I have pointed out, there is substantial evidence that genetics and other biological determinants heavily influence sexual orientation. In that case, suicide is not a viable option for an infant either inside or outside of the womb. These individuals cannot make the conscious decision to commit suicide, nor would they actually be able to do so. In that case, suicide is NOT a feasible choice for one that young, and therefore one would have to live as a homosexual, thereby affirming the resolution. B) If one chooses to end their life i.e. cease to "be," then one is not choosing not to be gay but rather choosing death. Even if one chooses death over being gay, the reality is that they were once gay, and being gay at that point in time still amounts to being gay without it being a choice. So, while of course one can always make the decision to end their lives, the fact remains that before they choose to do so, they were gay - not by choice. Again, the resolution is affirmed. 3. Living in Seclusion This is the most asinine argument I've ever heard. Even if one lived in seclusion, they would still identify as a homosexual. One can be a virgin or not sexually active and still maintain a sexual identity. This point does absolutely nothing to negate the resolution. 4. Sedation While it's true that one cannot be in a relationship while sedated (or have any sexual feelings or relations), the fact remains that one is still a homosexual genetically, biologically, or - as with the suicide example - they were gay prior to the sedation. Moreover, one can still engage in sexual intercourse while sedated [6]. That brings me to my contentions... Pro's Contentions: 1. Rape Con's presented definition of homosexuality was having the romantic or sexual attraction OR BEHAVIOR among members of the same sex. Whether we use that definition or my own, the fact remains that one can engage in gay sex without their consent. In instances of rape, one is involved in homosexual activity and they DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE. Therefore, I have once again negated the resolution. If you believe that it is not sex itself but rather the willingness or rather predisposition to enjoying gay sex which distinguishes one from being gay verses just experiencing gay acts, then you must accept the reality that biological factors play a role in one's sexual identity. Who you're attracted to is dependent upon chemicals and other biological occurrences. So, you'll see that even if one chooses sedation or suicide, the fact remains that while alive - the individual did not choose to be gay. And furthermore, after death, there is no one to choose an alternative to being gay so the non-living entity is irrelevant. 2. Being To clarify further on my opponent's proposal, one might be able to choose not to BE gay as in be gay in the future (i.e. by committing suicide). However, one cannot avoid BEING gay as in being gay that very moment (as in prior to suicide or sedation). This is a point I feel that I've made abundantly clear throughout the debate, but figured I'd reiterate for clarification. 3. Biology Christians and other groups teach that you can overcome being gay via prayer or other rituals. I'm hoping my opponent doesn't choose to go that futile route (too easy to prove wrong). But just in case, here is further proof that sex pertains to the brain [7]. Conclusion: One's sexuality is determined largely in part to biological factors. As such, if one is either genetically or somehow otherwise predisposed to being gay, then they are in fact born that way as in have developed into being that way during pregnancy. As such, said individual does not have the mental or physical capacity to willingly choose death or sedation. Therefore, they are being gay without the choice of being gay. Further, while one might choose death over being gay in the future (i.e. choose not to be gay), one cannot help or avoid being gay in the moment. So, at some point or another, one is gay without or prior to the choice. All of my opponent's contentions have been negated. Of course I reserve the right to extend any contentions for the Pro in the next round. For now, back to Con. [1] http://www.medterms.com... [2] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://www.newscientist.com... [4] http://news.google.com... [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [6] http://www.nytimes.com... [7] http://www.sciencedaily.com...

People who say "homosexuality is genetically related" are delusional People who believe homosexuality is genetically related ARE delusional Just think for a minute, it is illogical for a gay gene to exist simply because it would be hindering reproduction, thus, eradication of society. This phenomenon contradicts the concept of natural selection (the ability to reproduce), which is one of the many underlying components of biology. If a gay gene existed, why isn"t there any emphasis on searching for a "straight/heterosexual gene"? Just because gays are a minority, the "I was born gay" is used as a scapegoat to prevent humiliation. If a gay gene did exist, then how would you explain bisexuality? If a gay gene existed, then science would be able to provide a cure for it. But there aren"t any because it doesn"t exist. If a gay gene existed, then how do you explain twins who carry the same DNA turn out to have inverse sexualities? According to the article "Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic", Dr. Whitehead asserts: "The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors." The study negated the idea for genetics being a driving force for sexuality. http://www.hollanddavis.com... More evidence that proves gay is biologically unrelated: According to the article "Is there such a thing as a gay animal?" Animals that are "deprived of heterosexual contact", fertilizes stress and in effect start exhibiting homosexual behavior. An experiment was conducted where 2 male monkeys were placed in a cage for 19 months. When the male monkey is placed in a cage with a female, they would both "exhibit conventional heterosexual behavior." http://www.straightdope.com... The following statement comes from the scientist LeVay: "It"s important to stress what I didn"t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn"t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain". http://www.trueorigin.org... A person who is born with an illness (diabetes, down syndrome, autism, cystic fibrosis) have no possibility of being cured. It IS on the other hand, possible for a person to change his/her sexual orientation. All things considered, a gay gene does not exist. People who say that they were "born gay" are completely out of their mind. EVEN WITH THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE REJECTING THE NOTION OF GENETICALLY RELATED SEXUALITY, people continue to believe an idea that has been proved to be false, thus, they are delusional.

born gay Humans can be born with defects but most of the important learning experiences come when people are young and learning about social acceptance and only beginning to develop. during this time children are very trusting and accept more as fact.

Sexuality is a choice The first story shared by my opponent was actually a personal story so I do apologize for calling him out for not providing a source. However, one's personal experiences does not prove anything as a whole. As a young child I had my own bad personal experiences with dogs. Does it mean all dogs are out to chew your face off? Of course not, just like how mot every gay person can suddenly change their orientation. I also earlier brought up the point that people who are able to do so may have not been fully gay in the first place. In my opponent's second point he brings up a study conducted by a Christian group. He does point out hat the scientists involved are not Christian. However, isn't it possible that Christians would only publish data that supports their own preconceived viewpoints? You wouldn't see a YEC group publishing findings by an evolutionary biologist now would you? Opinions even within the scientific community are so varied so any group could find almost anything to support their own agenda. My opponent also mentions Sigmund Freud and Richard Isay and claims the former overcame homosexuality. I do not know much about Sigmund Freud's personal life nor his research but it's also possible he wasn't fully homosexual or he changed due to social pressure(he obviously lived in a time when homosexuality was still very demonized). As for the German boy my opponent brings up a good point that he may be suffering from gender identity disorder. Unfortunately from the one article it is impossible to determine whether he is experiencing attraction to other boys or not. Many children do begin experiencing these things at young ages. According to the following article a 11 year old boy committed suicide due to being bullied for homosexuality. http://www.parenting.com... Sure it's not the same age range but surely any child could have similar attractions? Also, if homosexuality was indeed made as a test from God that wouldn't necessarily mean it's a mental disorder as my opponent suggests. It could be a natural thing as God also expects straight people to control their urges. However, even if it was proven to be a mental disorder who is to force them to seek treatment and change? If they're happy being in same sex relationships then it's a harmless disorder unlike something like pedophilia. While there are societal and environmental factors that encourage "coming out" that still proves nothing about whether homosexuality is natural or not. It is true that Lady Gaga caters largely to a LGBT audience while delivering her "Born This Way" messages. However, if you listen to her song entitled "Born This Way" she also mentions that people should be proud of their race and ethnicity as well. http://www.metrolyrics.com... Her main activism is with LGBT groups but isn't it true they're currently fighting for rights and recognition just like African-Americans once did? Lastly, my opponent mentions that people get bullied for lifestyle choices which just concedes my original point. Lifestyles can often be easily changed while physical defects often cannot be. If being homosexual truly was just a lifestyle choice wouldn't it be easier to change? Good luck in the next round!