Question: Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

Title: Sexual orientation is determined at birth. Content: 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.

Title: Sexual orientation is determined at birth. Content: 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...;

Title: Children need to be protected from the gays and their homosexual agenda. Content: Freeman, Thank you as well. Defense of my C-2. Is it a possibility, but not very likely at all. Was it silly, far fetched? Indeed, however, I have lost debates on this site based solely on semantics. Since it IS a very remote possibility, I decided to include it. Since it was not discredited, it stands. The argument over sources again off-sets per the information I will provide below. Further, if I did not touch your second point, how could have mentioned things that I alledgedly didn't argue? My opponent attempted to discredit my sources by stating that they were right wing biased results. What were his sources? Left wing biased results. Not enough? Let's examine the quote from one of my opponnet's sources Ivanka Savic : me: Ivanka Savic-Berglund, MD, PhD Title: Associate Professor and Senior Consultant Neurologist at Karolinska Institutet at the Centre of Gender Related Medicine in Stockholm, Sweden Position: None Found to the question "Is sexual orientation determined at birth?" Reasoning: "I want to be extremely cautious - this [my] study (Brain Response to Putative Pheromones in Homosexual Men) does not tell us anything about whether sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain. It doesn't say anything about that." http://borngay.procon.org... Further, my opponent mentioned the American Pyschiatry Association as one of his many sources that "concurred": Biased Studies? Research studies, often conducted by individuals or organizations with a vested interest in the outcome, are contradictory. Studies linked to conservative political and religious groups almost never show anything positive about homosexuality and studies linked to liberal political and religious groups and/or gay support groups almost never show anything negative about homosexuality. So this means that we all have to take a step back and look at all these studies with a calm and a cool head. Though obviously being biased (since I know what the truth is from my own life experience) I still can not include any studies financed by the anti-gay religious right because for me the results are disingenuous, outrageous or even outright laughable. For example, Click Here to read about the ruse or junk science known as the Thomas Project or ï¿½€œEx-Gays?ï¿½€ï¿½: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change In Sexual Orientation whose principal investigators, Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse both worked for universities with strong anti-gay biases (and therefore had a vested interest in the outcome of the study) Wheaton College and Pat Robertson University respectively. On the other hand I have tried to weed out the studies with the more favorable outcomes to my side that seem to have some basic problems with their methodology. For example, I have not included the results of the following studies because these results could not be independently replicated by other researchers: a) The so-called "gay gene (Xq28) study" done by Dean Hamer. b) Post-mortem (after death) studies of the hypothalamus of the brain of homosexual males done by D. F. Swaab, Laura S. Allen, and Simon LeVay. o 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. Click Here on the American Psychological Association Website link, then scan down to the question "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?" and you will find the direct quote as used above. My opponent stated that I glided over single parent children. While that is not directly the subject at hand, I will speak to it. Single parent children will also miss out on the contributions of the missing parent be it male or female. In the scenarios presented by my opponent, he implied that all gay/lesbian parents are model parents without fault. Is it better to have.......? That is assuming that all gay/lez parents are, which they are not. MANY probably are, as are MANY hetero; however we cannot make this an all inclusive/exclusive. It is situational and must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Children are deserving of loving parents, and as such, careful placement MUST be paramount in the decision process. This idea directly ties in to the suitablility and parental potential of adopting families. The various departments of children and family services do a variety of checks to ensure children are being placed in a suitable home. For example, in Tennessee potential adoptive parents complete MAPP classes (Modern Approach to Partnership in Parenting). A home study is completed on the parents individually, together, as well as anyone residing in the home. Background checks are completed. Then 2 announced and 1 unannounced home inspections occur. If favorable, then parents are considered for placements. In the case above, parents are given information regarding the child. Can you accept a child who has (fill in the blank(s)? Parents need to know this for compatability. I will say that adoptive parents should NOT always attempt to change something about the child they are receiving. Sexual orientation notwithstanding; for example. REBUTTAL: I will not go so far as to say that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. I will say that whenever possible, straight children should be adopted by straight parents; and children with homosexual tendencies adopted by homosexual parents. As I stated, and undisputed, in Round 1, children "model" the behaviors of their caregivers. This would alleviate many of the inevitable questions that are certain to accompany such a placement. It is inevitable a child would witness public displays of affection, such as kissing. It is possible if not probable that they would also have some exposure to private displays of affection (I won't go there). They would be naturally curious to at least question if not experiment. With that in mind, it is clearly most beneficial to place straight kids with straight parents, and gay kids with gay parents. CONCLUSION: Contention 1: Worst case, both off set, best case mine is stronger. Contention 2: Unlikely, but possible, thus defended. My opponent did not have a 2nd contention. I win this debate My opponent cited Biblical scripture from the comments section. As promised, I refrained. I was expected to make all of the concessions, and surrender my opinion. (Reminds me of my beloved Israel!) Unfortunately, the best compromise that I am capable of is listed in my rebuttal. I was attacked in print for stating my opinion, yet I did not attack. Of the 50 plus comments, only 2 had anything supportive of me. Some even encouraged poor sportsmanship. So I ask, Who was really acting the part of the bully here? I have provided credible evidence to back my case. I have provided credible evidence to dismantle my opponent's case. Given this, I request your support in a PRO ballot. Thanks to Freeman for a good contest!

Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: 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.

Title: People are Born Gay Content: 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.

Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: 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?

Title: born a way Content: 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.

Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: 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.

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

Title: Rights for All sexual orientations Content: Well most people are born with arms and legs and a brain, for most people with these ligaments or a muscle in their head, it is up to them to determine how they will use it. Unless there is a birth defect in them that handicaps the child at birth or later on in life then that I guess one would say is an act of the deity to punish his or hers parents. These deities did not tell them anything, man wrote the Bible, Koran, and etc. How can we trust mans word if it lies constantly, we cant, we just cant. Take everything people say with a grain of salt because the underlying fact in this is that man lies and can write anything in a fancy way and say "god made me do it" same thing in regards to if man kills someone. It cannot be an act of god if he says "god made me do it" god (or deities) harming his own children. The creator (god) does not have to be removed. Just the church's of these gods need to conform a little. I am know catholic but I sure as heck think the pope is heading in a right direction in his new papacy. God is good, to an extant that everyone is equal just close minded people who run religion like to brain wash people into thinking that it is wrong.

Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: "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.

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice. Content: Um. .. ..

Title: Same-sex Marriage Content: Homosexuality is not a choice. It is something people are born with. Research has led us to believe that sexuality is determined by biological traits such as brain dominance, genes/DNA, etc. Though the main cause is unclear, scientists are certain that being gay is not a choice. However, polygamy is. It is part of a culture that people choose to follow. This very fact separates polygamy and homosexuality. 'There is now very strong evidence from almost two decades of 'biobehavioral' research that human sexual orientation is predominantly biologically determined." [1. http://www.nytimes.com...] "A basic principle of our social covenant is that we do not discriminate against people on the basis of circumstances that they cannot choose, like race, sex and disability. If sexual orientation belongs on that list, then should we still prohibit gay marriage?" [1.] On the contrary, polygamy is a choice. It is part of a culture that people choose to follow. This fact draws a fine line between same-sex marriage and polygamy. It will be looked at differently because same-sex marriage is a matter of human rights, while polygamy is matter of freedom of religion. They're part of different categories in the legal aspect, and therefore the Judicial branch will handle it differently. Despite activism the may occur, the road to legalization of polygamy will be stopped in court. For this reason, it is safe to say that the slippery slope is an invalid argument. The increase in divorce rates were caused by other factors. My opponent stated that divorce rates were rapidly increasing after the legalization of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands that occurred in 2000. However, same-sex marriage isn't to blame. Around the same time, emigration rates were increasing. "In 2003, emigration exceeded immigration for the first time since 1984." [2. http://focus-migration.hwwi.de...] Also, 'unemployment rates increased from 8.7% to 15.7% between 2000 and 2004 in the Netherlands. [3. Globalization and Migration: A Comparative Study of the Political.... By Michael Orlando Sharpe] These economic factors caused financial issues, and other problems that resulted in divorce of many married couples throughout the Netherlands. Blaming same-sex marriage for these occurrences without evidence is not a logical argument.

Title: Homosexuality is not a choice Content: 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.

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice. Content: 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.

Title: Sexual orientation Content: 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.

Title: Homosexuality is Genetic Content: 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...

Title: Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' Content: Twin StudiesMy opponent claims that because identical twins share the same DNA, they should both have the same sex orientation, but they don't. Therefore, he claims, it must be environmental. This has a number of problems to it. First, making a point against the notion: "Homosexuals are born that way" does not automatically prove your argument. For example, I could say "Because identical twins don't have the same sexuality, it can't be genes, it must be flying dinosaurs.", and it would still follow the same logic you have used. Second, people who have gay siblings are more likely to volunteer for these types of scientific studies, which can cause the results to become skewed.I agree, sexual orientation is not entirely due to DNA. That does not mean, however, that it is automatically environmental. Hormones play a major part in determining gender as well as sexual orientation, namely, the hormones the baby is exposed to in the womb. When in the womb, all babies are female, and in order to become male require hormones, namely testosterone. It is entirely possible that in the case of twins, one twin is exposed to less testosterone than the other. This is how you get fraternal twins. If for whatever reason onebaby was exposed to less testosterone than the other but both came out as male, the one who received less testosterone is more likely to be gay. The flip side applies for girls. Gay ParentsMy opponent claims through this study that gay parents are more likely to have homosexual kids than straight parents do, and therefore the gay parents must somehow influencing their kid to also become gay. There are also a number or issues with this conclusion. First, again, gay people are more likely to volunteer for/agree to these kinds of studies, again making the test pool skewed. Second, it is also entirely possible that the child is biologically related to one of the parents, and that "homosexual gene" (to kind of over-simplify it) may have been passed down to the child.Reorientation TherapyThe way reorientation therapy works is that they give the "patient" a positive stimulus when they have lustful thoughts for the opposite sex and negative stimulus for when they have lustful thoughts for the same sex. They also may fill them up with estrogen/testosterone in an attempt to make them find the opposite sex more attractive. However, it has been shown time and time again that this does not work. The first and main reason is that homosexuality is not psychosis. Again, if my opponent is saying that homosexuality is mutable, he is also implying that it is some sort of disease. Homosexuality is NOT a disease, if it was a disease, psychologists or doctors would be easily be able to discern them from straight people. But they can't, as seen in a study of I can't recall the name but it was mentioned in a This American Life's episode 81 words. I will however, provide a similar study below.A recent APA task force did a study on this and found in their 2009 report that the participants in their study went through gay conversion therapy and came out negligibly more attracted to the opposite sex and remained just as attracted to the same sex. On the other hand, what did change was the patients state of mental health, as the side effects of such therapy's were loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality and anxiety.A lot of these studies that my opponent mentioned have a number of issues. From 1960 to 2007 only 83 studies confirm my opponents case, of which most had biases such as a court ordering that compelled them to take the therapy or a very small, low budget test pool. Also, a lot of footnotes here, did you just copy and paste this stuff? Because if you did, please stop, I will not debate with a website.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."This statement has a number of issues. First, there are known animals who have long term homosexual relationships, a lot actually, namely geese and duck (who mate for life), dwarf chimpanzees (all of which, that's right, all, are bisexual), swans (also mate for life), domestic cats (mate for life), and lions (mate for life), to name a few. Second, my opponent forgets that humans are also animals. What applies to animals may also apply to humans, we are not suddenly above anything animal relate just because we are humans. This is why we do drug tests on mice; they 80% related to humans.I forgot to put sources last time, I put them here this time. Sorry!http://listverse.com...http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...http://www.livescience.com...http://www.frc.org...http://www.bestmedicaldegrees.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.wehonews.com...http://www.thisamericanlife.org...

Title: Prop 8 is Constitutional Content: Thanks for the debate kenballer. I begin with the understanding that, like race and gender, sexual orientation is not a choice. For example, the overwhelming scientific consensus suggests that sexual orientation is determined biologically. If my opponent wishes to debate this point, he is free to do so, but unless an argument is offered to challenge this view, I will proceed with the view that homosexuality is a form of self-identity that is beyond choice. What's more, in Frontiero v. Richardson the Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation "bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society." This ruling was backed up by a considerable body of sociological and scientific evidence, and was reaffirmed in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, where the Court overturned state regulations that discriminated against gays. The facts presented by these cases suggest sexual orientation is an irrelevant aspect of self-identity for the purposes of law and public policy. Prop 8 denies gays the right to embrace their sexual-identity and choose who they marry. These are fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. As such, Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. When a fundamental right is being denied, the burden is on the state to justify this discrimination. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. This means the law must extend the same legal benefits to every U.S. citizen. If marriage is a fundamental right (as Con himself argues), then it must be extended to everyone. And this means that if straight people can get married, so can gay people. The Due Process Clause guarantees "[no State shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This means that each individual has the liberty to marry the person of their choice, regardless of sexual orientation. Prop 8 clearly violates the Due Process Clause because it deprives gay people the fundamental right to choose who they marry. In Zablocki v. Redhail, the Court invalidated a Wisconsin law that prohibited the right to marriage to any resident who failed to fulfill court-ordered child support obligations. The Court opined that the Wisconsin statute "interfered with decisions to enter into ... marital relationships"; because the Wisconsin statute "absolutely prevented" the desired ritual, it was held to be unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds. The same logic (not allowing people to enter marital relationships) could be applied to invalidate bans on same-sex marriage. As I said before, the burden is on the state to justify discrimination of gays. My opponent offers two arguments in support of a case for state-sanctioned discrimination: (1) that marriage is heterosexual in nature; and (2) that marriage is reserved for procreation. These arguments are two sides of the same coin, so I will address both of them together. My opponents says the true purpose of marriage is to procreate. But if the purpose of marriage is procreation, individual gay persons can procreate through means such as artificial insemination and surrogacy arrangements. My opponent argues, however, that it is the biological procreative capacity of male-female couples that justifies the unique status of marriage itself. This argument is a non-starter for a number of reasons. First off, it is not clear that the state must sanction discrimination of gays if our species is to procreate and survive. Therefore, if gays are allowed to marry and have families, there is no reason to suppose our species would stop procreating. As such, my opponent has provided a compelling justification gay banning gay marriage that overrides a competing state interest in not discriminating against gays. Second, no couple has ever been required to procreate in order to marry. Sterile couples and old couples can marry. Couples physically able to procreate but who do not want to procreate can marry. This proves that marriage is not essentially about procreation because procreation is not essential to any marriage. My opponent says only allowing fertile couples to marry would be impractical. Actually, it is not as impractical as my opponent seems to think. All it would require is that prospective married couples sign an affidavit stating they are able to procreate and intend to do so. If it is found, after a few years, that a couple has been unable or unwilling to procreate, the marriage could be immediately dissolved. Of course, the fact that this has not been made a law demonstrates that procreation is not essential to marriage. My opponent says that "children from two biological parents fare better in every category of social and psychological measurement." This point is irrelevant because of one simple fact: no serious opponent of gay marriage advocates removing children from gay parents. The facts are simple: gay families exist. As of today, over 1,000,000 children are raised by gay parents. The important thing here is that gay families are not the top-down creations of government bureaucrats or radical visionaries. They are bottom-up facts of life. It is for this reason that no serious supporter of Prop 8 would suggest taking children away from gay parents. Because individual gays have access to procreation (through artificial insemination, for example), it should be evident that the optimal partnership theory is irrelevant for the purposes of law and public policy. I have addressed my opponent's arguments and shown why Prop 8 is unconstitutional. In closing, I'd like to point out that the Supreme Court has never said that the purpose of marriage is procreation. In fact, there are many reasons the state has an interest in marriage that have nothing to do with procreation. For example, marriage provides the married person with a primary caretaker, channels sexual activity into monogamous commitments, stabilizes households, and serves a role signaling familial commitment to one's community. These are all legitimate reasons that the state has an interest in marriage. Prop 8 clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Prop 8 denies citizens access to fundamental rights, the burden is on my opponent to justify state-sanctioned discrimination of gays.

Title: There's no such thing as being born GAY! Content: 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...

Title: Sexual orientation is not a choice Content: I think I win

Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: 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.

Title: There's no such thing as being born GAY! Content: 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!!

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: 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...

Title: It is a choice to be gay or straight. Content: 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...

Title: Homosexuality is not against nature or what God has designed Content: There is not ONE VERSE in the Bible that says that homosexuality is a sin or that it goes against nature; only the religious customs in Biblical times. I challenge you to show me with the Bible where it condemns this type of sexual orientation or behavior. Furthermore, I challenge you to explain to me how you reconcile the fact that God also made AIS hermaphrodites. These people are BORN physically both male AND female. In fact, and AIS hermaphrodite or "intersex" person has a vagina, female breasts, are hormonally more female that the average female. The do NOT have a uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes, or ovaries. The DO have internal testicles and their DNA is male. If our sexual orientation is determined by God, and he reveals what our orientation should be by our gender, what is one to do that is born with a vagina AND testicles? This is where science and the Bible clearly contradict each other if I were to accept the conservative Christian view of sexual orientation. This is nature's little "curve ball" thrown at Christianity and the Bible, for the Bible makes no mention of such conditions. Who would this person choose as a mate without sinning if homosexuality is a sin?

Title: HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE Content: You say research shows Homosexuality is hereditary and that your sources prove this? I'm assuming you never bothered to read your sources before you posted them because not 1 of the 10 sources you site provides any evidence that Homosexuality is genetic. Why? Because they aren't scientific studies. They're theories made up by "born that way" activists. The only honest statement you made was when you quoted the American Psychological Association saying "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor."[1] That's scientific and it supports my side. In the words of homosexual Milo Yiannopoulos "certainly In my experience homosexuality is more nurture not nature" [5] Considering this is my ending statement here's what I'd like you to consider: It is a fact that Homosexuals have elevated health risks in everything from cancers to STDS[2] (some of which unpreventable and lethal) It is also a fact that Homosexuals are statistically more violent than heterosexuals[3] Heck they can't even naturally start a family! The point I'm making is that the Homosexual lifestyle is not a fun one. In fact it's a dangerous one that will cut your life short on average by 8-21 years![4] If your born this way you have no hope. Your chances of a better life ended on day 1. This is why it has been my goal in this debate to show that you can make a choice. A choice that will benefit you greatly. In the words of Milo Yiannopoulos (Gay) "I would choose not to be gay if I could, and everyone should!"[5] The good news is that you can choose. So It's up to you now so choose wisely. Thank you very much for debating me and good luck! [1] http://www.apa.org... [2] http://glma.org... [3] https://www.cdc.gov... [4] https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com... [5]

Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: Since it is a 3 round debate, I think it will be fair enough only to out forward both my arguments and rebuttals in round 2 itself so that I dont end with a rebuttal in last round and my opponent gets to rebut me in round 3,where I will put a conclusion only.Now initialy I did misunderstand the topic thinking that my opponent thought environment was the only factor for someone being homosexual. However, I strongly think that homosexuality does originate from biology and biology only.Now, my opponent and I are on the same page when it comes to biology as a factor for sexuality. Therefore I do not to reinforce arguments to show that biology is a factor for sexuality. However I need to show that environment does not play a role in determining sexuality which I will be doing by showing events in which someone turns heterosexual in 'pro homosexual environment' or vice versa and putting rebuttals to opponents arguments.ARGUMENT Sexuality in animals - Homosexuality is very strongly observed in animal kingdom. Although even animals are social beings,are there environmental factors which contribute to homosexual behaviour? Complex social structures such as those in humans being society does not exist for animals, why then, there are queer animals??http://www.bidstrup.com... REBUTTAL1. Judges may note that the link shows the trends on sexuality. How the physical factors lead to variation in sexuality has no mention whatsoever. People in cities are more likely to be homosexual. It is beyond doubt that personal freedom of expression is more appreciated and prevalent in cities than in small towns or villages. It is very much obvious that people living in places other than cities will find it easy to reveal their sexuality. There is no proof to show that there are less homosexual people in non city places,it only means that people living in non city are afraid to express their sexuality. Animals regardless of the kind of place they live will the show the same amount of variation of sexuality,be it zoo or wild. http://www.sfgate.com...(zoo and wild refers to change in environment) Had it been that the penguins initially turned homosexual in the event of lack of female counterparts,they woud not have refused the offer of a female who are abundant in wild.Family issues 'Having a family issue is a reason for sexuality variation.' Judges may note that how family issues change change sexual behaviour. The link provided only gives a statistical account. Statistics does not give reasons to the graphs it only shows graphs. http://www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk...2. Younger men from Sambia tribe fellate other male as a rite of passage http://www.orijinculture.com...It may be seen that the 'homosexual' behaviour is only a ritual. The people AFTER the passage DONOT ENGAGE IN ANY FORM OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOUR. If social factors had such a role in sexuality, many of the tribesmen would have turned gay.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' http://www.hrc.org...http://www.drdoughaldeman.com...http://www.livescience.com...

Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: 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.

Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: 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.

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: I have read the comments for this debate and I will not make it unfair by starting with my argument. I will instead use this round as an acceptance round. I suggest we simply get straight to the debate.

Title: Homosexual civil unions and/or domestic partnerships are harmful to society Content: I would argue that one's sexual orientation cannot and should not be considered inherently harmful in any situation. Therefore, if one chooses a partner based on their orientation, then that partnership cannot be considered harmful to society either depending on the respective genders of the couple. If a male/female couple cannot harm society solely based on their combination of gender, than neither can male/male couples or female/female couples. I would argue that the real harm to society cannot be determined by one's gender or sexual orientation. If pro happens to have any examples of how one's gender or orientation can harm society, I'm all ears.

Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: 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.

Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: 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.

Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: 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...

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: I am against the notion that a person's sexual orientation is a choice. I would like to debate this topic with an opponent and see what has to be said by an opposing view. The debate will go as follows Round 1: Opening statement Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing statement

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: 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.

Title: born a way Content: 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...

Title: Resolved: Homosexuals are 'born that way' Content: Hello. == Definitions == Homosexuality: In this debate, we will be specifically be focusing on orientation. Same-sex behavior is different as it is often distinguishable from orientation. Thus, homosexuality will be defined as "an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of . . . the same sex or gender." -- http://en.wikipedia.org... 'Born that way': The theory argues homosexuality is inborn. Homosexuals are born that way, and their orientation is immutable. Genetics, epigenetics, or antibodies in the womb cause homosexuality and cannot change through therapy or different environments. --> I will be arguing homosexuality is caused by multiple things. Genes have *some* effect, but the effect is moderate to weak (less than 50%). Environmental factors are the main reason homosexual tendencies develop. I am NOT arguing it is an (intentional) choice. No one chooses these factors: they just happen. I will also argue change is possible, and therefore mutable. == Structure == R1: Pro accepts and presents case R2: Con presents case, Pro rebuts R3: Rebuttals/defense for both R4: Rebuttals/defense for Con, Pro writes "no round as agreed". I have made this impossible to accept. Accepting without permission = forfeit. No trolling, semantics, stuff like that. gl

Title: There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics. Content: 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.

Title: The "Slippery Slope" argument used in gay marriage debate is invalid Content: My rebuttals: I do not agree with my opponent in his claim that homosexuality is a sexual behavior. I would like to clarify the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation/attraction. Sexual Behavior: The method and/or means in which a person chooses to express their sexual orientation. Sexual Orientation/Attraction: the direction of a persons emotional and physical desire, toward people of the opposite sex, same sex, or both sexes. If needed proof to distinguish the difference, how does one know they are heterosexual if they've never had any physical contact with a person of the opposite sex? Are they a clean slate? No, they are simply attracted to others of the opposite sex. Sexual Orientation determines sexual behavior, not vice versa. Polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and incest are all examples of sexual behavior, and there are legitimate reasons why marriage among these behaviors should remain illegal: Polygamy: Takes advantage of marriage benefits most especially. Imagine an employer having to pay insurance to a worker with who knows how many wives! This is unfair to other couples and to the government providing them with this abundance of benefits. Bestiality: Are animals covered by our constitution? Homosexuals are human beings, whom ARE covered by our constitution. Pedophilia: Children do not have the mental capacity and/or ability to consent over and adult. Incest: If a man loves his sister, there are still many "fish in the sea" that man would be able to marry. If that man were a homosexual, he has no options, for he can not marry any other man. I am aware of the stigmas between many of these sexual behaviors mentioned and can understand why many would associate homosexuality into them. But when analyzing the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation, one can clearly see that homosexuality just does not share the same label with these behaviors.

Title: People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances. Content: Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted. If we accept "bestiality" as a sex concept where people want to have sex with animals then why we can"t accept "pedophilia" as a sex concept where these people want to have sex relationships if those individuals who have yet to see puberty. In Christina"s Premise 2 she acknowledges that the crime consist of a person acting on their sexual attraction to children; but to a pedophilic this is all they are attracted to so why can"t it be said that a being a pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Therefore as you see you can"t cure a gay and make them straight just as you can"t treat a pedophilic to not like children. All the treatment is going to do is help him/her manage those urges, but they will still want them. The arguments goes in further stating that the disorder is associated with mental, and emotional, and/or behavioral problems however the define Christiana stated in Premise 2 doesn"t state that the crime occurs based on the following issues associated with this "disorder."

Title: The sexuality of parents has no effects on a child's future life Content: . 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."

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

Title: born a way Content: 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.

Title: Should gay marriage be legal Content: We are all told we are born the way we are weather that is without a certain limb or a mental disability. When it come to sexual orientation people seen to be confused. The majority is born attracted to the opposite sex, and we can't help that its just the way we were born, but when people are born and they like the same sex people that don't agree with it get to offensive. Why can't people love the same sex? You might answer that question with " Because God said so." Which is very invalid. Yes, he may have said that one can't love the same sex, but the Bible also says (not in exact wording) that we should love everyone no matter who or what they are.

Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: This policy of asylum pressures governments to reform discriminatory laws

Title: Nobody Can be Born Gay it is a Choice Content: My opponent has conceded that genes do play a role in the outcome of homosexuality with " Genes can increase the likelihood of someone being gay" thus if something outside of our free will which determines choice affects us and our sexual orientation, then how can my opponent argue it is a choice. My opponent has admitted that our free will can be affected by our genes this obviously leads to a conclusion that the desire for homosexual relations is not a purely based on choice. The genetic predisposition to addiction or the 'addiction gene' works the same way as the gay gene If a child has the addiction gene they are 8 times more likely to develop an addiction(1). Just like the gay gene if you have it you are much more likely to be gay. In relation to my opponents alcohol point if one never comes into contact with alcohol even with the addiction gene one can not become an alcoholic this is true(1) but it only hinders my opponents argument. As just like the addiction gene if a male with the gay gene never comes into contact with another male how can he be gay? The homosexuality still exists just as the addiction there is yet though no desire to act it out as one does not know what it is they desire. However no such hypothetical situation exists and unlike those with the addiction gene whom may never taste alcohol thus never 'trigger' the addiction males will always come into contact with other males thus 'triggering' the homosexual response from the gay gene. Again reaffirming the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. On my opponents last point this is known as the 'Anecdotal fallacy' and should be dismissed as evidence. Also you say your parents raised you to be straight, I have to ask where is your choice in that? I feel it obvious that I have the stronger case and have used much more credible arguments and evidence to support my claims unlike my opponent who used only one reference as evidence and presented no real arguments to refute the choice except for his biblical verse which was easily dismissed. I however used factual evidence and several different sound arguments which all lead to the one conclusion homosexuality is not a choice. Thank you reference: 1. http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org...

Title: There is no gay gene Content: The BOP is even. C1: There is not enough evidence and there is no real conclusion in the scientific community No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." [1] And also most research indicates there is none! Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. [1] So only ones with political interest find gay genes. But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment: While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment. [1] So basically some say gene, others say brain, others say environment there is not proof that there is a gay gene. "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...." [6] C2: No gay gene "Nonetheless, our data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation," [2] This is funny as they say no gene can influence the cause. Also gay activists admit there is no gay gene: Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born British homosexual activist who founded the "direct action" group OutRage! that specializes in media stunts such as disrupting Christian religious services, wrote on Spiked Online that he agrees with the scientific consensus that there is no such thing as a "gay gene." [3] Oh I forgot to say if I put a foot note next to a paragraph or sentence the wording in front of it until the paragraph space is C/P. Also it is hard to prove a gene and gays as 90% of one study (the main study used to prove the point you are making) false. This info = 4th source. A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. [5] The stance that 'science proves that some people are born gay' chooses to willfully ignore scientific evidence to the contrary. Thus there are studies which conclude that: " In every case I have examined, studied, or treated, homosexuality was the consequence of serious disturbance during childhood development" [7] So basically it is not a gene some environmental cause. Ultimately, no gene or gene product from the Xq28 region was ever identified that affected sexual orientation. [8] So basically no single gene has been linked to gay, only theories. The reality is, no gay gene has ever been found by scientists. The original claims about a gay gene have been proven false. [9] If homosexuality is not genetic that means that it is due to environmental factors and therefore can be reversed. In fact, many studies have shown large numbers of gay men and lesbian women have converted to heterosexual relationships through counseling. [9] SO no gay gene, just environmental factors. C3: evolution As you know evolution is survival of the fittest and the thing with an advantage wins. Being gay is a disadvantage as if gay people where everywhere this race would not produce offspring. So even if it did exist at one point it would be dissolved within a few generations. Things will evolve or die, since we are still here chances are it evolved away if it even existed. =conclusion= There is no proof regarding a gay gene and there is simply none. Also evolution would have stamped it out a long while ago, vote pro. sources: http://www.narth.com... [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://www.lifesitenews.com... [3] http://www.sfgate.com... [4] http://www.wnd.com... [5] http://lavistachurchofchrist.org... [6] http://www.aletheiacollege.net... [7] http://www.godandscience.org... [8] http://curtis-cost.newsvine.com... [9]

Title: Homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. Content: First, I will establish that sexual orientation is not hereditary and is subject to a large number of psychological variables. This is primarily to make the point that homosexuality is not "natural" in the sense that it is unavoidable or part of human instinct. I point three facts that seem to contradict modern conception of attractiveness:1. Apes tend to be attracted to older females due to their having more experience raising young and surviving. In modern society we observe th opposite.2. People used to find overweight or heavier females attractive, the logic being that such women were better fed and had a larger chance of surviving. This is still prevalent in some societies.3. In Elizabethian England pale skin (possibly signalling health because a clear and pale face probably didn’t have smallpox) and a large forehead was considered attractive (the hair was plucked to make the forehead appear bigger).Second, there is a large body of evidence that supports an "exotic-becomes-erotic" theory (which states that whatever sex is seen as "exotic" or different later becomes erotic, thus gender-nonconformity during childhood causes sexual attraction to the same-sex later in life). In a 1987 study, 75% of gender-nonconforming boys became bisexual or homosexual in later years compared with only 4% of gender-conforming boys. Homosexuals overwhelmingly report sex-atypical activities and had opposite-sex friends growing up. [1. http://dbem.ws...]Peer rejection, a distant or belittling father and an emotionally smothering or needy mother (for boys), low self-esteem, and sexual abuse are major causes of homosexuality. Often a child will be unable to connect to others of the same sex, resulting in unstable and unhealthy sexual relationships. It is well established that gays have much higher rates of suicide or mental illness than straights; to dispute this my opponent will need to prove that these are directly caused by social stigmas or discrimination."Like most heterosexuals, most gay people are fully functioning members of society. A good parent is responsible, competent, loving, trustworthy, etc. None of these qualities are exclusive to heterosexuals. There seem to be no qualifications of a good parent that a gay person can not possess."I sincerely hope you aren't playing semantics with me. Technically they can, but I am saying that this is generally not the case. If you are saying that it is "possible" that gays can raise well adjusted children, I point out that it is also possible that beating kids is a good method for discipline (seeing as there must be at least a few success stories in the world). Wasn't this mentioned in the comments? Furthermore, whether or not children have mother and a father is not irrelevant. "Rough-and tumble" play with their fathers influences a child's social development and teaches them how to be physical without being inappropriate or hurting people. [2. http://www.psychologytoday.com...] A study in the U.S. and New Zealand found that the presence of the natural father was the most significant factor in reducing rates of early sexual activity and rates of teenage pregnancy in girls. [3. Bruce J. Ellis, Child Development May/June 2003, 74:3, pp. 801–21] Children who are have good relationships with their mothers have higher self-esteem, and from better social connections with others. In a another study, 77 18-month old-children were exposed to stimuli (such as a robot clown or a puppet show). Cortisol levels for the (frightened) children varied depending on their bonds with their mothers. Children who had secure attachments showed no increase while children with insecure attachments showed an increase. [4. http://www.thelizlibrary.org...]Fathers and mothers are not interchangable. Children of same-sex couples are forced to seek male or female role-models elsewhere. The reason why they show little difference in "social isolation, adjustment and self-esteem, opposite gender role models, sexual orientation, and strengths" is because the traditional model of the family is being destroyed. Children today are not raised by their parents; they are raised at school or other environments away from their families. Mothers or fathers are not the biggest influence in the children's lives; rather, they hardly seem to have one at all. Parents, who are supposed to be role models and form close connections with their kids only spend a fraction of the time they used to with them, with unfortunate results. The rate of increase of depression among children is now 23%. [5.http://www.upliftprogram.com...] I wish I could elaborate on this right now, but I have only fifteen minutes left. "There have been numerous studies indicating that children raised by 2 parents have more success and less emotional or behavioral problems than their single-parent counterparts."Of course having a two-parent family is better than one. The economic benefits alone help children. Irrelevant."I expect my opponent to make the argument that kids with gay parents might get teased more."Are you serious? Please give me a little more credit than that."On that note, much like adopted parents, gay parents typically have to go out of their way to have kids (i.e. in vitro fertilization). Meanwhile 50% of heterosexual babies are unplanned. Psychologist Abbie Clark explains, "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement" [4]."My opponent here says that gays can make better parents by avoiding a flaw in straight relationships (that many pregnancies are accidental). This is ridiculous; simply because it is a problem does not mean it is inherent in that entire style of relationship, nor does it mean that such a flaw will never be fixed or that unplanned pregnancies will never be stopped. By this logic the argument about kids getting teased is perfectly legitimate."There are plenty of people raised by gay parents who have had great experiences and turned out very well adjusted. Zach Wahl's speech about family (he also has two lesbian moms) went viral on YouTube, and I encourage my opponent to look it up. He is a very successful and admirable young man. However, I mentioned that I don't want this to turn into a debate over anecdotal evidence. We need to consider not individual cases, but how much sexuality in general influences parenthood."Anecdotal evidence only shows the limits of what is or can be possible. Pro concedes this later on and I'm baffled as to why she brought it up in the first place."In a 2010 review of virtually EVERY study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents."Copy-pasted from source.I look forward to my opponent's reply.

Title: People are Born Gay Content: "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...

Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: This policy is an illegitimate breach of national sovereignty

Title: People convicted of pedophilic crimes ought to be treated and not incarcerated in all instances. Content: The claim is that Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and if it is a sexual orientation then its not treatable. The claim assumes that sexual orientation is a way of life not a disorder. The claim goes further by stating Pedophilia is a sexual orientation like heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality. Sexual orientation is a person"s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted to; it is the state of being a heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. This claim deviates from the issue. The problem with pedophilia is not that the person is sexually attracted to men or women, it"s that the person is sexually attracted to boys and/or girls. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, meaning it is not the attraction to a male or female, it is a disorder of sexual preference. It is a disorder of sexual preference because pedophilic behavior causes harm, unlike sexual orientation. Pedophilia may put children at risk because they are not in the age of corresponding to the sexual attraction of pedophiliacs. It is why pedophiliac behavior should be prevented. Treatment can help prevent it.

Title: transgender is not a gender/sex, Only 2 genders Content: First, Before I start my argument I need to define certain words. Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender identity can correlate with assigned sex at birth, Or can differ from it. Sexual orientation is a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, Homosexual, Or bisexual. Genital is a sexual organ. I will now present my argument. Argument From Genitals to multiple gender identities. P1. A society states that a gender comes from a person's genitalia. P2. There are two different genitalia. P3. So, There must be at least two genders. P4. However, A person can have one genitalia, No genitalia, Or both genitalia. P5. So, There are at least four genders. P6. However, A person can change their genitalia to another. P6. So, There are at least eight genders. P7. If P3, P4, Or P3 and P4 are ture, Then there must be more than two genders. C. There more than two genders.

Title: Your not born gay Content: 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.

Title: Homosexuality is psychological and not biological. Content: "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."Sue, should be no problem."But can could scientists take the gene samples of babies and determine which were hetro and which would be homosexual?"With a high degree of accuracy, yes."An algorithm using epigenetic information from just nine regions of the human genome can predict the sexual orientation of males with up to 70 percent accuracy" (1)The accuracy rate isn't near absolute, because homosexuality isn't entirely genetic in origin. That, and the fact that homosexuality can be predicted from genes (particularly with such a high degree of accuracy) shows that they play some role in its cause."It should be clear by now that whatever homosexuality is rooted in that thing is not biological or genetic."In addition to the prior evidence (which should be more than sufficient), there is even more data that supports a partly genetic view of homosexuality.For example, one study found X-chromosomal linkages between homosexual men:"DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested." (2)"From an evolutionary perspective you might wonder why a male 'born gay' would also produce semen?"There is an evolutionary precedent for why male homosexuality exists. One study found that female relatives of homosexual men tend to be more fertile than average."We observed that the maternal aunts and grandmothers of homosexual probands were significantly more fecund compared with the maternal aunts and maternal grandmothers of the heterosexual probands." (3)This suggests that the genes influencing male homosexuality have a different effect on women (increased fecundity), to the degree that the effect of increased female fertility offset the selective pressure against male homosexuality."This would further indicate to me that no baby is born 'genetically gay'."As my sources show above, it's unlikely one's sexuality is determined entirely by genetics. That said, it'd be silly to rule out the demonstrated impact genetics have on the issues entirely."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."These issues being more common in homosexuals than heterosexuals is likely owed to other factors, not homosexuality itself.At least some of these issues (the abnormal suicide rate for example) are definitively known to be largely caused by social factors:"Several nonrandom studies have found an association between parental rejection because of sexual orientation and higher risk of suicide attempts among LGB youth (D'Augelli, Grossman, Salter, et al., 2005; D'Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 2001; Remafedi et al., 1991; Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009). One study of White and Latino LGB young adults aged 21–25 (Ryan et al., 2009) found that those who experienced frequent rejecting behaviors by their parents or caregivers during adolescence were over eight times more likely to report making a suicide attempt than those with accepting parents." (4)If there's any evidence that these are directly caused by homosexuality itself, directly, then it has not been presented. Furthermore, evidence that the final parallel is more common in homosexuals than in heterosexuals ("commonly highly sensitive to any criticism while being fiercely critical of others") remains to be provided by Pro.Sources:1) http://www.ashg.org...2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...3) http://journals.plos.org...4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Title: Rights for All sexual orientations Content: People are people, we were all created equal under a god or creator or Allah (does not matter what you call him/her) if we are all equal rights for p.eople should be the same

Title: Sexual orientation is not a choice Content: 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.

Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: This policy undermines the grassroots movements that are necessary for full and sustained protection of the LGBT community

Title: Sexual orientation is not a choice Content: 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! 😀😀😀

Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: This policy of asylum helps manufacture global consensus on the protection of the LGBT community

Title: Sexual orientation Content: Hello. I would like to begin by thanking the instigator, GMFGMD, for challenging me to this debate. Although I may disagree with your opinion, I do respect your opinion as I hope you do mine. If you are born to be gay you are an "accident of nature". Research has proven that being gay is not a disease. Research: (1) http://www.helem.net... "Homosexuality was considered as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) until 1973". This nullifies you argument calling it a deformity. Therefore, calling it a deformity is in an opinion. Of which gives you no sound proof of it being an accident of nature. Also, "On January 1, 1993, the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from its list of diseases." (1) WHO has removed homosexuality from the list of diseases. Thus, not making homosexuality a handicap. Now for a second lets call homosexuality an "illness". Why do gay people get kill, bullied, hurt, emotionally, and physically abused? Aren't you suppose to treat people who are ill in a kind and loving manner? When my friend is sick I don't say "Omg, you have strep throat. You should die. You don't deserve to breathe the same air as me." The way people treat homosexuality is not as a way of illness which proves people do not think of it as an illness. If people though of it as an illness they would give you soup and say "Hope the gay goes away." Being gay is not an illness the way people treat homosexuality proves my point. Normal. Funny choice of words. Could you tell me what is normal? Normal is such a vague word. Normal can mean literally anything. Nothing is normal. Technology is not normal in comparison to human's roots. Superheros are not normal but we think they are awesome. Normal is not normal. "Those that choose it are just sick." Again, as I mentioned previously , homosexuality is not an illness. For sake of argument, lets replace the word sick with "bad". Now what I do not understand is, why does my choice in who I love make any difference to another person? In conclusion, homosexuality cannot be classified as an illness. It is normal because normal is a vague word meaning anything. Who I love does not hurt anyone. Honestly, if anyone is hurting themselves it is you because of all this hate in your body. I am not the one causing your hate you are. Hate, as well, as anger is an individual emotion that can only be controlled by the person who has it. Therefore, if it is a choice, why does choosing who you love hurt anyone? Love is love.

Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: 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...

Title: Sexual orientation doesn't originate only from biology Content: 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.

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: 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!

Title: Age of Consent Policies Content: Rebuttal "Obviously, Intercourse goes beyond simple pleasure. It can cause pregnancy, Which has multiple effects itself. For example, Consider this: 'In 2017, A total of 194, 377 babies were born to women aged 15"19 years. . . Only about 50% of teen mothers receive a high school diploma by 22 years of age, Whereas approximately 90% of women who do not give birth during adolescence graduate from high school. '" According to the CDC report you referenced, Age of consent policies have yet to be determined as a factor in preventing or reducing teenage pregnancies: "Although reasons for the declines are not totally clear, Evidence suggests these declines are due to more teens abstaining from sexual activity, And more teens who are sexually active using birth control than in previous years. " (1) It's also worth noting the some of the limitations of that report: "Limitations Our study had several limitations. When self-reported information is used, One must always consider the potential for over- and under-reporting. Adolescents are generally reliable reporters of information on sexual health. However, Given increasing social pressure to delay sexual initiation and avoid pregnancy, Adolescents may be more likely today than in the past to underreport sexual activity or overreport contraceptive use. Although the overall NSFG sample size is adequate, Sample sizes become problematically small in analyses of subgroups. This was particularly true for the Black and Hispanic subgroups, In which the numbers of sexually active young women fell below 100. Moreover, Variance around changes in percentages or around attribution was much larger than variance around estimates for a single point in time. As such, Care should be taken in interpreting our estimates for these smaller subgroups. . . . We assumed that there were no changes in whether contraceptives were used correctly or in biological fecundity. Correct use of contraception can be assessed via measuring changes in typical-use CFRs. We used the most recent available failure rates (for 1995). Ranjit et al. Found no changes between 1988 and 1995 in typical-use CFRs (note that questions about contraception use at most recent intercourse did assess consistency of use). 18 No data are available to measure changes in biological fecundity among teenagers (or adults). " In addition, When doing a cross-country analysis, Switzerland had the lowest rates among Western countries in teenage pregnancy, Yet Switzerland's age of consent is at 16. (2) And while the United States has an age of consent as high as 18 years old, Most states have an age of consent at 16. (The U. S. Military code for armed services defines age of consent at 16 as well, But also allows exemptions for those married to 12-15 year old minors. [3]) "1 in 4 teens contract a sexually transmitted disease every year. " And one in two persons who are sexually active will contract an STI by the time their 25, Years above the age of consent (4) In spite of half of the new emergence of STI's occurring among those who are 15-24 years of age, Age of consent policies are currently imposed. This incidence of STI contraction is concurrent with already existing age of consent policies. " Do you have any evidence which suggests that teens who have sex with those above the age of consent puts them at more risk of contracting an STI? Or that current age of consent policies prevent or address the prevention of teenage sexual encounters among themselves, Preventing the spread of STI's? "The Impact The government itself already spends plenty on contraception prevention efforts: 'if we were able to avert all unintended births among teens, It would amount to $1. 9 billion in additional public savings each year in the United States. '" What does this have to do with age of consent policies and the effects of their measures? "Besides this, The fact that students are dropping out of schools because they are getting pregnant affects more than just them, But their parents as well. Assuming these are rational, Loving parents, They are going to help their child to raise this child, Which puts stress on them to, In some cases, Have to work more in order to pay for such things. " Parens Patriae doesn't simply manifest in age of consent policies, But also Child Labor Policies, Which stifle Youth Employment. Furthermore, Hikes in the minimum wage are associated with declines in teenage employment (5. ) "effects to a child of a teenage mother include: greater risk for lower birth weight and infant mortality less prepared to enter kindergarten rely more heavily on publicly funded health care are more likely to be incarcerated at some time during adolescence are more likely to drop out of high school are more likely to be unemployed or underemployed as a young adult" And which of these effects are age-based, And not residuals of economic and social policy? "This as all led up to say this: the persistence of the age of consent laws are not about the age of an individual and that effect on their decision-making capacity. . . " This is in fact not true: "Age of consent refers to the legally defined age at which a person is no longer required to obtain parental consent to get married. It also refers to the age at which a person is held to have the capacity to voluntarily agree to sexual intercourse. " (6) "But rather the effect of intercourse by teens on not only themselves, But their families, Their children, And society as a whole. It causes the U. S. To pay more money, It causes families more stress, It causes teens to have worse health, And it causes their children to live worse lives. " So how do age of consent policies address any of that which you mentioned? Do age of consent policies address teenage pregnancy? STI contraction? How do the age-based restrictions define the effects to which you speak? References are in the comments of my profile.

Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum

Title: Sexiality Isn't a Choice Content: My statement is silly? Bravo. Give it up. Sexuality is a choice. One feels a certain way in their life at one point then all of a sudden "figures" themselves out. You went from having a sexual orientation to being "asexual" whatever that means which is a change by choice. One day you think you feel a certain then next you "figure" it out later on in life you feel another way? Right... anyway. You're welcome, glad I took the time to debate about this.

Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: This policy breaks down important inter-governmental dialogue on LGBT rights

Title: HOMOSEXUALITY is a CHOICE Content: 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.

Title: LGBT People Should Have Equal Rights Content: Sexual orientation should have no bearing on a person's rights. Although the morality of sexual orientation is different from person to person all men and women are equal regardless of who they choose to love or sleep with.

Title: Homosexuality is a natural occurrence and is not significantly harmful to society. Content: Is homosexuality natural? Let's define natural . In my owns words, natural are the things that already exist in nature or exists innate. These are things that come about and or present essentially without them being introduced any other way outside of that . Nurturing, teaching , influencing, providing and giving are all other ways happening outside the natural . Now how does sexual orientation come about, particularly homosexuality? As far as research goes, it's inconclusive whether it's truly just natural, genetic, biological, etc. . There are a lot of cases that weigh on both sides. The two sides with one being born with pre-determined configuration of sexuality and the other being an influence. So basically one would ask a homosexual , how did your feelings, desires, physical attractions for one gender than the other begin ? The person will give you their life story depending on their comfort level of perhaps conveying the explicit details of how it all started. I trust each personal account will be different .Then the answer will be available to the question of " Is homosexuality natural?".The answer may or will change from individual to individual . Is homosexuality significantly harmful to society? Yes, to people that are able at continuing to sustain their existence via reproducing themselves. Now anything treated very significantly would be in a situation that's truly serious. However when dealing with something that's harmfully significant or insignificant I would believe that everyone one of us sees it as all being the same . We wouldn't want either one actually. Any type of harm to whatever degree is a "no go" so I will continue with just using the word harmful. Now society has to do with being defined as a particular place so it's not just harfmful to society but the world abroad . Why is it harmful? What is harmful? What does one consider to be harmful?(to people in particularly). One may or will harm another thing to gain prosperity. A group of persons may harm another thing or things to gain prosperity even health wise meaning for health reasons . It may be harmful for that other thing according to that other thing's perspective but quite opposite to the thing or person that inflicted the action which can be described as harmful. Something that is ultimately harmful for PEOPLE in general is unhealthy . Unhealthy means a deterioration in their well being. It's damaging, adverse, negative for their existence. As we can see more and more of a life that is not healthy will not continue to remain present. It will result in the absence of life . Absence of something is the negative which is the opposite of no harm . Harmful works in a process to cease life . What are one of the ways to cease life cumulatively? That is to promote and cease the operation of heterosexuality that combines resources to promote the growth in the fruit of life . Particularly non-incest heterosexuality because again , in reference to what has been studied and stated by the individuals whom have done so, we are aiming for the best quality of life and welfare. With homosexual acts that do vary between individuals , basing it on what's actually being done or utilized, it is very well likely that the wasting of resources designed for promoting human life is occurring. Now of course this also depends on what a person thinks the use of the bodily functions are for. Some will say "the body is the body and function is function. So as long as I'm not hurting the person next door, that's all that matters."It's good to observe the results of an action. Just make sure it's looked at as a whole. As something that repeats over and over again, will the result overall be exactly the same ? That's what's meant by seeing the result in something cumulatively or in principle. Sometimes the result isn't fully presented or immediate. The result of actions may be a long-term, gradual process. Also it is in accordance to the condition the actions are made in that produce the true outcome. That's why it helps to make an effort to examine the purpose of the existence of something as well . Look at the design of a particular thing or part and it's ingredient(s). The design will communicate something in regards to the aim/objective for it's particular function in the first place. We can ignore all that and just go with how we feel. It may feel good now and hurt or harm later.

Title: Sexual orientation is not a choice Content: 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!

Title: Sexual Orientation is a choice Content: "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.

Title: Birth sex should not be a factor in legal contracts Content: Thank you for your response :) While the stated topic was, "Birth sex should not be a factor in legal contracts," it was clarified in R1 to be about the root issues behind same sex marriage, and the change in legal rights accordingly. The topic, limited by character count, was by necessity somewhat vague, however, I expanded that with the statement, "Essentially, I feel that it is unethical to change someone's legal rights according to what biological sex they were determined to be at the time of birth." Considering that this made very clear in the proposal argument, I say it is fair that this be used as the actual basis of the debate. As stated in R2, I have no objection to the abilities of individuals or groups to selectively engage in legal contracts. Contracts which can have limits according to specific individuals, or classes of individuals, as long as such limitations are regulated by the government to ensure no discrimination. The stated issue is the right of the government to change the legal rights of individuals based on their birth sex. Answers: 1. I do believe it should be legal for someone to specify what sexual characteristics are required, in certain, limited types of contracts. For instance, specifying a female stripper is entirely reasonable. I do not, however, feel that the government should be able to say that a male, for instance, cannot legally become a stripper. And to forestall a potential rebuttal, semantics are beside the point. If you define a job as "male only," then of course, by definition, a female cannot partake of that role. However, the job itself should be legally available to anyone who can meet that job's requirements. 2. Yes. However, in the instance of childbirth, the mother tends to have significant physical impairments that the father does not. In instances of actual childbirth, I feel the woman should receive additional time off - what amounts to a specialty sick leave. However, beyond this additional leave, which would not apply in cases of adoption, I feel that men and women should both receive equal leave. And in fact, here in Canada, it is just so :D (Yes, I'm a Canadian debating US politics. Sue me :P) As it happens, I also feel that maternity/paternity leave should be guaranteed by the government, barring unusual circumstances, but anyway. 3. The answer is, it's irrelevant. I know, it looks like a cop-out, but the thing is, the purpose of this debate is to dig into government interference with rights. They "should" do as their morals and/or society and/or the local, relevant laws suggest that they do. The government, however, should not mandate that males open doors for females. There are 3 types of "marriage" in the united states: 1. It is a specifically religious institution, with massive religious connections. 2. It is a public declaration of love and invitation for family, that has absolutely no religious connotations whatsoever (such as when atheists marry). 3. It is a legal contract that provides certain benefits, the majority of which are entirely unrelated to procreation. To my knowledge, that's it for the types. Religious organizations, I feel, should have the right to do as they please, as far as marriage goes. Part of freedom of religion allows for the freedom for religious discrimination, even on the protected classes. The government should not mandate who they must or must not marry, and in fact, should be utterly uninvolved (with few exceptions, like child abuse). The second type should also not be interfered with by the government. It is a social construct. The third, however, is a legal contract granting legal benefits. If in your nation, civil unions grant precisely equal legal rights, then great! That's all that's needed. Take a job where sex is part of the description – there's a male waiter and a female waitress. Can a male be a waitress? No, but there's a precise, and perfect match, with precisely equal pay/duties/etc. That's fine. If "marriage" is the term for male/female unions, and "civil union" is the term for same sex unions, but they are in every other regard precisely equal, then there's no issue. (I still don't like it, but it's a tolerable solution) However, if one grants less rights, as is the case in the USA, then there is a problem. Civil unions are not the equal of government marriages (religious marriages are entirely irrelevant, unless you argue that atheists should also receive inferior treatment) Ultimately, I feel the government has the right to do 2 things: it can tell people that they may involve sex in a specific agreement, and it can tell them they may not. I feel that it absolutely may not, under any circumstances, mandate that they involve sex in a legal arrangement. To more fully expand the topic, I feel that birth sex (a designation that is both medically changeable and in many cases arbitrary) should not be a government mandated factor in legal contracts. Enjoying this debate so far :D

Title: Homosexuality is Genetic Content: An examination of family pedigrees revealed that gay men had more homosexual male relatives through maternal than through paternal lineages, suggesting a linkage to the X chromosome. Dean Hamer24 found such an association at region Xq28. If male sexual orientation was influenced by a gene on Xq28, then gay brothers should share more than 50% of their alleles at this region, whereas their heterosexual brothers should share less than 50% of their alleles. In the absence of such an association, then both types of brothers should display 50% allele sharing. An analysis of 40 pairs of gay brothers and found that they shared 82% of their alleles in the Xq28 region, which was much greater than the 50% allele sharing that would be expected by chance.Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Title: Sexuality is a Mental Defect Content: 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."

Title: Legalization of Gay Marriage Content: My Arguments Gay Marriage Benefits Society Gays parents are just as good as heterosexual ones When it comes to marriage, the well-being of the kids is a concern. Whether homosexuals choose to adopt or have artificial insemination, we know the kids are in good care. According to Benjamin Siegul, a School of Medicine professor of pediatrics, the kid's relationship with the parents as well as social and economic support is more important than the parent's sexual orientation. [1] Numerous studies have also claimed that sexual orientation is irrelevant to parenting effectiveness, namely the American Psychological Association. [2]The American Psychological Association states through their decades of research that "adjustment, developmental and psychological well-being of the child is unrelated to the child's sexual orientation" and that kids of lesbian or gay couples are likely to flourish. [2] The American Academy of Pediatrics have come to the same conclusion: "Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders. "[3] Many kids are also happy with their homosexual parents, and in fact, feel like they don't even need a parent of the opposite gender. One kid named Logan, a son of lesbian parents in Alberta, Canada stated this: “I don’t feel I needed a father or wanted a father,” said Logan, “It’s kind of overrated. It’s not like you need a male figure in your household the entire time, as long as you can talk to guys and see them and you can be friends with them. That’s enough. ”[4] Gay Marriage is legal in Canada and most kids are doing just fine. Marriage is a Constitutional RightThe Supreme Court verified 14 times that Marriage is a protected right for all citizens. [5] The 14th Amendment states in Section 1: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "[6] Ideally, rights such as marriage shouldn't be taken away from people just because of their sexual orientation. Not only is this supported by the Constitution, but it's also supported through the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. In article 16 it states, "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. "[7]I've shown that gays are fit to parent, so why can't two people who love each other get married and enjoy priveleges just like everyone else. Two People who Love and Respect one Another should be allowed to share rights and obligationsThat's what marriage is all about isn't it. Gays shouldn't have the right to marry taken way from them just because of their sexual orientation. Isn't the United States all about equality. If two people who love and respect one another should get married, let them be. Gay Marriage is legal in 15 different countries. [8] My question is : Why can't America legalize it as a country? It's a Constitutional right that applies to all people. Therefore, gays should be able to marry for these reasons. I look forward to my opponents next arguments. Sources:. http://www.bu.edu...;[1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;[2]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...;[3]http://www.edmontonjournal.com...[4] . http://www.ctpost.com...;[5]http://www.law.cornell.edu...;[6]http://www.amnestyusa.org...;[7]http://en.wikipedia.org...;[8]

Title: sexual orientation should be considered grounds for asylum. Content: Asylum is not the best way of dealing with discrimination against LGBT people.

Title: Born gay part 2 Content: 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.

Title: homosexuality is a genetic disorder Content: I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic disorder, rather it's a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association has deemed sexual orientation to be fluid, or changeable throughout a person's lifetime. Sexual desire is not genetic, it is in the mind.

Title: Sexual orientation is not a choice Content: 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.

Title: Same-Sex marriage should remain illegal. Content: I don't mind the changes to the rules. Admittedly, I have jumped at the debate since I wanted to join it before someone else does. Thus, Con was unlikely to have enough time to revise or edit the debate. So no conduct points should be taken for this reason.Allow me to slightly rephrase the definitions: Orientation: A person's feelings, interests, and beliefs Homosexual Orientation: The state of being sexually attracted to individuals of the same sex Homosexuals: Individuals who identify based on participation or willingness to participate in homosexual behavior I believe that the definitions are both sound and reasonable.1- Lack of equalityBy that, I mean between homosexuality and heterosexuality.Defining heterosexuality as a mere sexual conduct between members of the opposite sex would be suppressing a fundamental truth about being human. Human beings (with the exception of those with medical conditions like hermaphrodite) are either males or females with their respective sexual organs. Any sexual desire or feeling is rooted in that heterosexual design. Therefore, heterosexuality is also an objective physical reality.For homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, homosexuals must have their own comparable psychology or gender.Thus, members of a sexual orientation are individuals, who are immutably biologically heterosexual, who prefer to engage in a particular sexual activity.If you are talking in the context of orientation, then sure, perhaps they are equal. However, so are pedophiles and every single sexual orientation you can think of. Abstract thoughts have no significance to other people unless they are turned into actions. Subjective states of mind are potentially subject to change, and they do not necessarily represent a person's behavior. Thus, it is meaningless and illogical to judge from the context of orientation rather than behavior.Is there a biological reason for desires and orientation? Possibly. Is it mainly nature or nurture? We don't know. I could argue that there is no concrete and solid evidence over the hypothesis that homosexuals are "born this way", however the issue is irrelevant. Unless a severe mental illness is involved, people are responsible for their conscious actions regardless of desire; a murderer or a pedophile cannot use biology as a justification for their behavior. Participating in sex, like homosexuality, is a conscious and voluntary behavior unless rape is involved.This point does not attack the morality of homosexuality. However, it demonstrates that homosexuality is not inherently equal to heterosexuality, thus there is no logical basis behind legalizing homosexual marriage because heterosexual marriage is legalized.2- Legalizing homosexual marriage is irrationalMany reasons can be attributed for the existence of marriage in history, like preserving family name and power, managing inheritance and property, forging alliances, and so forth. In the context of this argument, I shall only be talking about marriage legally.Marriage is not simply a private contract between two people where these two individuals declare their undying love. The contract is recognized and protected by the state which also provides benefits.http://www.law.cornell.edu...As public law involving citizens and the government, benefits are given as an encouragement. However, this implies that the government should encourage people to engage in homosexual relationships or something relating to it.Homosexual marriage is not logical since it does not provide any favourable social function what so ever for the government to recognize it, reward it, and support it. Thus, effectively wasting tax money.Sexual relationship are a private act. Neither the government or the people regulate consensual acts that does not directly harm the individuals or society. And since homosexual behavior is just that at best, the government have no reason to recognize or support it. However, I believe it is not disputable that heterosexual relationships are required for societies to sustain, or provide healthy and productive citizens and tax payers for society and the government.Note that marriage is not needed for adoption as a single parent can do it. Homosexual couples have no unique positive social impact that is exclusive to them. Thus, homosexual marriage is simply needlessly and wastefully rewarding a private cultural behavior with no real social impact.Also, love is irrelevant to the law, it simply does not care about it. You want to love? Nobody is stopping you. People are free to love their friends, families, and partners in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check-box that says "In love" in any official document. Historically, love was rarely if ever, a significant reason for marriageAlthough not really a main point, homosexuals generally use higher risk sexual behaviors, Consequently, this resulted in increase of STD rates.http://www.cdc.gov...Monopolization of HIV infection diagnosis in 2011 is an other indication. Male-to-male sexual contact (78.2%), Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use (3.6%)www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/statistics_surveillance_MSM.pdfAlongside accounting for 75% of syphilis diagnosis in 2012. (related to the first cdc source)http://www.cdc.gov...This is alarming considering that the adult population of the LGBT community in the united states is estimated to be about 3.5% of the total population.http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...This (medical risk) doesn't necessarily provide a justification to advocate against homosexuality per se. However, it provide valid grounds for the government to at least NOT endorse homosexuality. There is a difference between encouraging something and allowing it.All in all, with lack of social advantages and weighting disadvantages, the government and society have no need to support homosexual marriage.

Title: Homosexuality Is Immoral! Content: I will start of by talking about why homosexuality is okay , my argument will be kept simple . Homosexuality occurs in hundreds of animal species (natural-that which occurs in nature) , It is undeniably natural . Of course there is no single gene responsible for homosexuality , something as complicated as sexual orientation is going to involve a lot of genes and the environment too what I mean by the environment is that what happens when the fetus was exposed to while in the mother’s womb can significantly affect its development and may influence behavior later on in life . The environment can cause a lot of things for example brains to be wired in a certain way as it develops now this wiring can’t be changed easily at all . Many twin studies of homosexuality have shown very interesting results that identical twins are about twice as likely to both be gay compared to fraternal twins , what does this mean well this could mean that being gay is partly genetic and not simply something that a person learns or chooses to be. There is one important thing to note, though . It is not completely genetic because If the DNA sequence is the only thing determining whether someone is gay or not wouldn't we expect that if one identical twin were gay, then the other would be too 100% of the time ? . the rate is actually closer to 50% . So while we know that genetics are involved we must understand that they doesn’t tell us the whole story now this is of course where the environment comes in. A big part of who we are seems to come from what happened while we were in the womb. When scientists looked at large families they saw that men with a lot of older brothers were more likely to be gay interesting huh? this was true even when the brothers were raised apart from each other so it simply is not something to do with the family situation.Something biological must be going on now let me explain scientists aren’t exactly sure what it is but there are possible explanations and different theories one is that having all those boys somehow changed the environment in mom’s womb. Now the next boys were more likely to end up with brains wired so they were attracted to other boys.Maybe when a mother is pregnant with a boy, her body makes a different set of chemicals and molecules than when she is pregnant with a girl seems quite logical right?each time she gets pregnant with a boy, this “chemical memory” might simply get stronger, and somehow affect his brain development. Now this altered brain development then could influence the child’s sexual orientation. Rebuttals - According to the http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Morality is defined as 'Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour:' and Immoral as 'Not conforming to accepted standards of morality: ' My opponent makes the claim that '2.All sexual activity that is rational is done for reproduction' I have to disagree many humans and animals have sex for pleasure and not for reproduction for example sex plays a very important role in bonobo society. It is used as a greeting, as a means of conflict resolution, and a host of other important social gestures. They are relatively indiscriminate about their pairings . One indication that animals enjoy sexual activity is the act of masturbation. '4. Rational means justified, or within the boundaries of reason. It is such that anything which is rational must be reasonable and explainable, it would not be something which is unjustifiable. In example one cannot justify raping a four year old because of lust, for the action was irrational, that is the opposite of rational.' Rape is natural yes but it is moral because it is not between two consenting adults . Homosexuality on the other hand is between two consenting adults . Lust? You mean sexual attraction . '1. Reproduction here entails the engagement of an act with a sexual will such that if the will is carried out completely, and is rational then there should be a direct result of pregnancy and child-birth. Reproduction here means that your sexual activities should, if there is no unexpected problem, lead to child birth. ' My opponent makes the assumption that all sexual activity must lead to reproduction which is false sex has many benefits for example it can improve physical and mental health as I already explained reproduction is not the only reason people and animals have sex and it doesn't mean homosexuality is unatural . I will not address the 'The Theological Proof:' as my opponent himself has said that 'This proof is meant for those who do not believe in evolution but believe in God.' The Evolutionary Argument - My opponent assumes that humans are I don't know how but apparently outside the confines of nature: Humans are products of nature, and therefore they cannot go against it . That which occurs in nature is natural . Here is just one example of how homosexuality can be benefitical http://link.springer.com...; . Homosexuality might be a method of population controll in nature and has reproductive benefits It does not go against evolution .

Title: Jesus Christ loves gays equally as much as straights. Content: Hello there my friend. This is my first debate in a year, so I'm excited to debate this. First off, I would like to state I'm an atheist, so I have a lack of belief in god or gods. Second: Yes sexual orientation is static, your gender (whether your gay or straight or bi) is what your born with. Also, Jesus Christ, whether or not he existed, didn't ever, once, say anything about homosexuality in the bible. However isn't Jesus not only the Son of God, but God himself? I end my opening statements: Good luck!

Title: The relevance of causes of sexual orientation to policy is dubious Content: "Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States : A social science perspective." American Psychologist. 2006 "The relevance of this question to policy is dubious because homosexuality is neither an illness nor a disability, and the mental health professions do not regard a homosexual or bisexual orientation as harmful, undesirable, or requiring intervention or prevention."

Title: Gay marriage should remain illegal everywhere Content: In Response to the Rebuttal of Sexual Orientation and Parenting EffectsAlthough both parties in this debate have discussed matters not specifically related to the “legal contract that recognizes the two as together,” I must remind my opponent that such arguments should at least be supported with evidence if they are to continue to be discussed.My opponent gave no evidence to support the claim that a man, or two men, cannot adequately provide (in an emotional sense) support for the teenage girl. I will return to my previous statements based on research by the American Psychological Association regarding same-sex couple parenting: “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.”In response to, “Even a gay woman would be inferior to a straight woman in this sense:” I must note that just because a gay woman may not be able to relate in a sexual oriented way to the child, this does not necessarily mean that the woman cannot relate to the child, even in an emotional sense.In Response to the Rebuttal of “Denied Health Benefits of Same-Sex Couples”“Relative to your self-actualisation argument, a girl raised both two gay men may not reach her potential due to the two being unable to understand and address her emotional needs.” I definitely refute the basis of the rebuttal presented.Abraham Maslow mentioned the following regarding self-actualization: “intrinsic growth of what is already in the organism, or more accurately of what is the organism itself...self-actualization is growth-motivated rather than deficiency-motivated” [3]. With this in mind, I must say that even if gay parents could not meet the “emotional needs” of the child, the child would most likely not be affected when it comes to self-actualization. My original argument regarding this actually did not contain any mention of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in relation to children. The argument was guided toward a person who is engaged in a marriage: They would feel more self-worth. Only my first argument was directed specifically toward children, not this one.Legalizing Gay Marriage Would NOT Harm Traditional Family Values or Heterosexual MarriagesA question meant to imply a rhetorical response should not be the basis of such an argument. My opponent has given no evidence that new laws which make gay marriage legal would negatively affect the traditional view of marriage. It is not “basically saying that the old concept of marriage was wrong.” Governments legalizing gay marriage are not doing so to prove that an old model is flawed; they are doing it to provide more rights for a minority within the country.I agree with my opponent that increasing divorce rates are alarming. However, the legalization of gay marriage does not necessarily add to the increasingly bad divorce rate. “Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage” [4]. In fact, Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates. Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, divorce rates have decreased 21% between 2003 and 2008. In addition, Alaska, who altered their constitution to prohibit gay marriage, have seen an increase in divorce rates of 17.2% [5]. “The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage” [4]. These statistics do not directly correlate with the legalization or non-legalization of gay marriage, but the statistics strongly appear to resemble a correlation when it comes to the legalization of gay marriage, or the ban of it.In Relation to the “Weakening of Traditional Family Values”“Allowing a new type of marriage would encourage people to turn from the traditional marriage […] during the Great Depression, men would be trying to find a job whilst the woman stayed home to attend house-duties.” I must remind my opponent that we currently reside in the 21st century where views of this system are not exactly intact anymore. Obvious trends show that people are already turning away from the traditional system of “Woman stays home to clean, man goes out to work.” Furthermore, current movements toward gay marriage are merely contributing the new way we even think about marriage. Keep in mind though, gay marriage is not the only contributor to “changing ways:” Take interracial marriage as one example.Work Cited[3] Maslow, 1987.[4] http://gaymarriage.procon.org.... Point 11.[5] Nate Silver, "Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans," www.fivethirtyeight.com, Jan. 12, 2010.

Title: Hand orientation is justification for genetic engineering of gender Content: 1. Assuming Genetics works the way my opponent says it does: No answer=Psy gangem style defeat 2. Mutations and sexual reproduction Answer? Daily Double 3.Mutations on the Sexual Chromosomes Argument really not answered 4.Any population inequality would be easily fixed. Argument not answered :) 5.Male and Female ratio in general isn't really based on genetics. Argument not answered :) My opponent has failed to meet his BOP :) Therefore he is the weakest link goodbye :)

Title: Almost irrefutably, Asexuality exists Content: minus conduct points to con. I said no arguments in round 1. Numerous surveys were conducted interviewing asexuals. About 1% of the population are asexuals. Asexuality is actually now accepted as a sexual orientation in the scientific community. https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Asexuality#cite_note-Helm-2These people truly truly don't want sex. Some have even had sex, Been married for years, And at the end after 40 years still say that sex was nasty. Is it a mental illnesss? Is something wrong with their brain? I don't know. But asexuality does exist. https://www. Huffingtonpost. Com/entry/electrified-and-numb_us_58d018ace4b0e0d348b34624

Title: Sexuality is a Choice Content: "Please reproduce IN FULL where I have EVER said that sexuality is a choice. I NEVER have. " Well I understood that you had, and by accepting this challenge you have agreed to debate from that position. "Homosexuality (which is a misnomer as people of the same sex cannot breed which is what sexuality refers to) is a choice. " Sexual orientation is not dependent upon reproduction. All you have done is to reiterate without defence your position, that you are claiming that homosexual desires arise from a deliberate choice. Is this consistent with any experience, logic or facts. "ANY sexual act is a choice" This is irrelevant to the debate as we are not discussing acts but feelings. "Unless my opponent can show that I HAVE argued that sexuality is a choice he does not EVEN have a challenge, let alone an argument. " No, by accepting this challenge you have agreed to argue that sexuality is a choice, it is now irrelevant whether or not you have actually argued this previously. You could have asked for the terms of the debate to be changed, but you accepted them. In conclusion my oppoent has failed to argue for the Pro position and is in fact distancing himself from these views. Thus my opponents position is negated. Thank you.

Title: Nurture versus Nature (BOP is equally shared) Content: 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...

Title: Sexual orientation Content: I am grateful that you respect my opinion as I do yours. Hopefully our differences won't affect that. My point is that homosexuality is not normal. My biggest problem is with the gay agenda. I don't believe it should be promoted as a normal life style. Because it clearly is not. Having said that does not mean anyone should be denied the right to love whom they want as long as it is "mutual". But there are consequences when we try to normalize something that is primarily based on an abnormal sexual preference. In the case of same sex interaction you cannot have offspring. When it comes to marriage the argument is why can't I legally marry the one I love. I submit that the reason that the state got involved with marriage in the first place was because of offspring. It's a contract between a man and a woman that puts children first and their love secondary. And it is my opinion (but not just mine) children need a mother and a father. If you are gay maybe you cannot see that. Yes gay couples are capable of loving children too. But the need for a mother and a father trump that argument. Also the sexual nature of that kind of union is not healthy for nurturing children. In their attempt to normalize Homosexuality the gay agenda has forced it's belief on The Boy Scouts of America. Something I feel was completely unnecessary. It's supposed to be a free country. The idea that their political motivation was more important than preserving the values that the scouts held is indicative of who they are. To be clear, I am talking about the those that belong to the gay organizations that promote these political ideals. To me this just strengthens my belief that homosexuality should not be treated as normal.

Title: Sexuality should not be a part of the Olympics Content: Sexuality and sexual orientation was already an issue in athletic competition. The lines of sexuality and gender are blurred beyond recognizing only male and female variations of people with different sexual orientation preferences; especially because of transgender and transsexual people, which are ideas that your position and case might also compatible with, however, the "rule-book" would still have to be rewritten to make exceptions for a sports competition like the Olympics as gender and sexuality are clearly defined to keep competition fair and prevent cheating. It becomes an acute issue in athletic Olympic competition in cases where the female-male barrier is breached; allowing people with male bodies to compete with other athletes who have true female bodies and vice-versa. Also brings up the issue of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) for transsexuals, specifically, Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT). Recent examples from Mixed-martial Arts (MMA) can be used to corroborate these kinds of ideas as they recently adopted Olympic style and level drug testing but have exceptions for TRT. But then to try to graft these ideas onto a practical real world dilemma, like you have done for the Olympics, makes for a very fun and interesting case because it becomes hard to tie these ideas down even though it becomes necessary. Example for the Olympics: A transgender person who has female neurology (has a female brain) but has a male body would have to compete against men considering how she is/was born. Technically she is a girl but has male parts, therefore, would have to compete against men. But because she has a female brain, her male body didn't develop to be masculine and would qualify for (HRT) which would then break the banned substance policies. And if she is truly a female with a male body, should she be allowed to compete against other females (her testicles don't produce much testosterone but certainly more than other true female athletes with female bodies) etc. ? Which still violates the current rules for the Olympics (which if you're for amending then that isn't exactly neutral). Well, then you might want to say, "Hey, a transsexual isn't a homosexual.." right? --True, but there are combinations of all of the above mentioned; a transsexual-gay person for example (they really exist), etc. So I don't think Pro can remain purely "neutral" on the topic, because either way, it becomes an issue -- it was already one in competitive athletics before the Russian debacle. So my personal feeling on this one is that everyone is wrong because we are still collecting data and details.

Title: Sexuality is a Mental Defect Content: 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.

Title: Being gay is NOT a sin Content: For future arguments, kindly try to break up your paragraphs a little more. I can have trouble reading it compounded into one body. Thank you.The idea of a sexual orientation (in rome for this part, as that is what paul spent most of his time addressing) was relatively unnecessary. People could have sex with anyone lower in class than them regardless of anything and it was common practice, not just in pegan rituals. Rome was in general messed up. In rome, most marriages were simply for the sake of social standing, where as sex and even love was often put apon their slaves.Basically in Rome, there was no need for the idea of homosexuality and the Jews saw it more as an act.The sins regarding sexual relations in general are mentioned within the new testement, sins that also still apply and are categorized similerly include; Having sexual relations with your mother, having sexual relations with animals, with your siblings, and your family's partners.None of this is shown to only apply to religious sex, but rather is considered a defilement of creation. Notice the use of words when bibliclly such acts are refurred to, you see things such as "perversion" or "detestable". I see this as showing it more in the spirt of twisting good then worshiping idols, unlike some other old testament rules like the one against tattoos.The relationship between David and Jonathan was of strong friendship not romantic love. Romantic love and friendship love are both different in nature, and can be just as strong.I am comparing consensual love between two human beings to bestiality. The reason for this is because they are similar in nature as sins, both being considered a perversion of sex. I know many people do not like the two being compared but it fits quite well.I see no need for attraction in a romanitic relationship, yet regardless the attraction itself does not require action. I see dating rather as a way of making sure the other person is a good fit with you before making a commitment as big as being willing to love someone.I hope I properly addressed your points, as I may of missed much in A2 in particular, and tend to panic somewhat when the timer goes below 24 hours.

Title: IVF Debate Content: According to the article from http://www.lajollaivf.com......, "Anyone can Have a Baby". IVF gives a chance for anyone to have a baby regardless of family status or sexual orientation. Nowadays, single women, men, gay and lesbian couples can have children. People who have infertility issues can have babies. Women with missing, damaged, or blocked fallopian tubes can carry successful IVFs. Men too can have issues with fertility, according to the article, they can have an "intracyctoplasmic sperm injection" (ICSI), to extract a single sperm and inject it into the egg"s cytoplasm. IVF can increase chances of conception. Many couples choose in vitro fertilization because it helps them conceive more quickly. IVF increases the chances of having a healthy pregnancy and child. In the article, "Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis" it allows couples to identify any chromosome deficiencies before it is implanted into the uterus. People can control when they can have the baby. This is because couples don"t need to try to get pregnant naturally. IVF gives couples control over when they could be pregnant and when it will be born.

Title: Gender Identity is determined primarily by nurture, rather than nature. Content: The report done by the Innovation Group? It was a poll of less than 1000 people. And the questions they used to determine their numbers? They asked less about a person's sexual standpoint than what they saw about current trends. One such question: "Gender doesn't define a person as much as it used to". Or how about: "People are exploring their gender identity/sexuality more than in the past." A more reliable survey would be the National Survey of Family Growth conducted by the CDC in 2006, where they found that 95% of Americans identified themselves as exclusively heterosexual. Now although this number probably isn't proportional to teen statistics, it is clear proof that the numbers provided by the J Walter Thompson innovation group are incorrect. But why are we wasting time talking about sexual orientation? This debate is about gender identity.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. But just because you think you are something doesn't mean you are that thing. Like a very popular meme says, can I sexually identify as an attack helicopter? The studies that say that your nurturing and upbringing determine what you think you are, ARE TRUE! If you are brought up thinking you are a dog, you will think you are a dog. But are you a dog? No! (Assuming you're a human reading this). Now, assuming gender is flexible, why can't racial identity be a thing? Can I change my ethnicity just because I think I'm of another ethnicity? No, race is not exclusive of nature. In the same way, gender is not exclusive of nature.Just to be clear, if your debating statement is equivalent to this statement, "What you think is determined by nurture rather than nature," then there is no debate. You say gender identity is about "a person's perception", so is the statement I just gave the same as your statement? Otherwise I am making a case against gender being separated from one's sex.

Title: Businesses should have the right to refuse service to people because of sexual orientation (USA) Content: Discrimination towards anyone in a public place is a violation of civil rights. A business that isn't involved with a religion is open to the public because the business is not a religiously oriented organization therefore you cannot justify discrimination on the basis of religion. I however do believe that churches should not have to do gay marriage because the churches are religious places and the government forcing them to clash with their religiously would be a violation of the first amendment (freedom of religion).

Title: Being gay is a not a choice! Content: 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.

Title: Keep Gay Marriage Illegal Content: Okay I am going to introduce my points for Same-Sex marriage. C1: Social Equality ------Genetics My opponent has said: "As for evolutionary role, everything in human behavior has roots in evolution." So my opponent says that sexual orientation is decided by genetics. ------Marriage benefits Marriage provides several advantages than being banned marriage. These include pensions, tax breaks, insurance coverage, social recognition, and better financial benefits. Why should gays/ lesbians be denied from this institution based soley on their sexuality? It's akin to the Jim Crow laws which denied African Americans the right to vote before the 1960s. ------Civil Rights and Constitutionality Marriage has been concluded to be a basic civil right of man, and also concluded to be fundamental in our survival as a species. This was determined in Loving v. Virginia. Gay and lesbians should not be denied a fundamental human right when the cause is genetic like my opponent said. [1] The result of the above case is from the Constitution. If marriage should be managed by the states, than it must be extended to them as well. This is because of the 14th amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Since my opponent and I have agreed that homosexuality is genetic and therefore not "chosen", this is due process, and because of the Equal Protection clause, a ban on gay marriage violates the Constitution. Therefore, SSM is Constitutional, and fulfills equal and excellent Civil Rights for all, instead of a few. C2: Gay Marriage Harms/ Gains John Stuart Mill has proposed a major philosophical principle: called the harm principle. Mill says: " The actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals." [2] So, if gay marriage is not more harmful than beneficial, it should be legal. Rebuttals to "harms" My opponent has basically summed up his whole case as this: "Science shows us this reason is to help take care of nieces and nephews rather than having kids of their own." My opponent also voiced a concern on overpopulation. However, the world population is expected to decline after 2070, [3] and in the USA birth rates are already falling, and has been for a while. [4] Your source also shows that the kind of people there that act as "super uncles" is common because of the Samoa culture of close families and tight-knit communities instead of the USA's culture of my individualism. My opponent also has lacked to provide a source that gay marriage would lead to a lack of helping nieces and nephews by homosexual Uncles and Aunts. Gains From Gay Marriage Gay marriage leads to a range of different benefits: 1) Social recognition leading to stronger relationships with more meaning and status. 2) Gay marriage legalization would entitle homosexual couples equal financial benefits with heterosexual couples. This would be beneficial to the marriages, as well as local communities and the nation. Billions and more would be put in the economy. [5] 3) Helps children. Currently about a million children live in a household with homosexual parents. They are not harmed, as I will show soon, but if gay marriage was allowed, with all of the protections and benefits that come with Gay marriage legalization, many children would be helped as well. Would take many children out of adoption system. 4) Gay and lesbian parents are just as good as heterosexual parents. Numerous amonts of studies have proved this to be true, that children thrive equally under heterosexual and homosexual parents. [6] [7] [8] [9] Conclusion: Marriage is a fundamental human right. Under the Constitution, gay marriage should be legal. It comes with many social, economic, and psychological advantages, to all people. Plus, many more children would be helped with gay marriage being recognized. VOTE CONtra Sources: [1] http://law2.umkc.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://abcnews.go.com... [4] http://www.google.com... [5] http://www.cbo.gov... [6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [7] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com... [8] http://www.time.com... [9] http://www.livescience.com...