query: Is sexual orientation determined at birth?

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

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

positive: Being Transgender is not a Sin Being Transgender is a Congenital ConditionTransgender women are women because of biological reality. Many studies show that transgender women's brain are physiologically female. In this sense, transgenders are in the same boat as intersex people. Both faces biological reality, so to speak.Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus (Kruijver et al. , May 2000). In their study of six MTF GID sufferers, a femaleR08;sized BSTc was present in all subjects. Additionally, the size of the BSTc was not influenced by taking sex hormones in adulthood. This implies that these individuals had a powerful biological force compelling them to be female, rather than just a psychological conviction" (Nicola Tugnet et al. 2007).For a number of sexually dimorphic brain structures or processes, signs of feminisation or masculinisation are observable in transsexual individuals, which, during hormonal treatment, partly seem to further adjust to characteristics of the desired sex (Smith ES, 2015). According to a 2009 study, being a male to female transsexualism has a genetic cause. Australian researchers have identified a significant link between a gene involved in testosterone action and male-to-female transsexualism.A significant association was identified between transsexualism and the AR allele, with transsexuals having longer AR repeat lengths than non-transsexual male control subjects (p=.04). (Hary L et al. 2009). Not all cisgender women (women born with XX chromosome) experience "menstrual cramps, pregnancy and dozens of other things women experience." For instance, a cisgender woman with Mayer-Rockitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome (MRKH) does not have a uterus or a womb. Studies show that transgenders are born that way. The strongest evidence to suggest that abnormal prenatal brain differentiation may lead to gender identity disorder comes from a recent study examining hypothalamic brain nuclei in men with gender identity disorder ( Zhou et al. 1995) The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation (Garcia-Falgueras A 2010). RebuttalsMost gender dysphoric children grow up to be gay or lesbian.Patients with non-persistent GD (whether children, adolescent or adult) is not a case of Irreversible Transgenderism because by very definition GD is persistent cross-gender identification.Only 2.5% to 20% of all cases of GID in childhood and adolescence are the initial manifestation of irreversible transsexualism (Alexander Corte et al. 2008).Most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty. Children with persistent GID are characterized by more extreme gender dysphoria in childhood than children with desisting gender dysphoria. With regard to sexual orientation, the most likely outcome of childhood GID is homosexuality or bisexuality (Drescher J et al. 2014).Of children with even severe gender dysphoria and cross-sex identification, about 85% do not develop a persistent transsexual identity in adolescence. Reliable indicators are not so far available regarding which gender dysphoric children cease to be so in puberty and who develop transsexual identity. Medical interventions are therefore not warranted in pre-pubertal children In light of current knowledge, transsexual identity in adolescence is persistent and medical interventions may be appropriate (Riittakerttu Kaltiala-Heino et al. 2015). Con, note that sexual orientation is different from gender identity. Do not confuse the two. Deuteronomy 22:5Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross-dressing. CAH and other forms of intersex conditions with GD diagnosis (e.g. XX male syndrome etc.) show us that genes and genitalia are not the determiners of gender but the brain itself. Thus, if the scope of Deut 22:5 were universal, then, intersex people with GD is wrongfully included in that proscription since modern science hasn't yet been available in the ancient world. Yet in our time Deut 22:5 is not applicable to intersex people with GD since all of today's Christian denomination encourage sex reassignment and gender transition to such people! Why not encourage sex reasignment to transsexuals with GD as well? Bottom line: GD diagnosis covers both intersex people and transgenders. Patients with GD (whether trans or intersex) equally deserve to receive medical treatment for GD. 1 Corinthians 6:9The only Biblical usage of malakoi [male prostitutes, NRSV] in the context of sinful behavior is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Since malakoi is side by side arsenokites [man lying in bed], it connotes same-sex sexual activity. In the context, it refers to heterosexual males commiting homoeroticism as a form of idolatry (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:17-18). Bottom line: Con's argument is wishful thinking.1 Corinthians 6:9 does not talk about people with GD because if it were, then, intersex people will be included in that proscription! Deuteronomy 23:1Deuteronomy 23:1 is clearly about eunuchs. In Matthew 19:12, Jesus himself welcomes eunuchs! Therefore, [Jesus] cogently argued that Deuteronomy 23:1 is now null.Psalm 139:13God is perfect (Psalm 18:30). Every one is created by God from birth even from the womb (Psalm 139:13). Blindness is not part of the original design (Genesis 1). Judaism believed that being blind from birth is a sin (cf. John 9:3). Being an eunuch is excluded in Judaism (Deut 23:1). The argument of Con holds no water because in the New Testament, both conditions were welcomed by Jesus Christ himself! There's a man blind from birth (John 9:1) and there's a man eunuch from birth (Matthew 19:12). Birth defects are not mistakes but God's way of displaying his glory(cf. John 9:1-3; Matthew 19:11-12). Neither Eve were created blind nor were Adam created an eunuch! The Biblical Ethics of Gender Reassignment You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is good for you. You say, "I am allowed to do anything"-- beneficial. 1 Corinthians 10:23 (NLT) Dear friend, I hope all is well with you and that you are as healthy in body as you are strong in spirit. 3 John 1:2 (NLT) The Bible allows gender reassignment since those medical treatments are good and beneficial for the health of patients with Gender Dysphoria. has been demonstrated as the most effective treatment for patients affected by gender dysphoria (or gender identity disorder), in which patients do not recognize their gender (sexual identity) as matching their genetic and sexual characteristics (Selvaggi G, 2011). Although current transgender treatment is relatively invasive and does not address the problem completely, it is the most successful intervention available. Studies report very high transgender patient satisfaction with sexual reassignment. Thus far, the largest evaluation has been a survey of Dutch transgender patients. Among the 1,285 patients surveyed, 1,280 were satisfied (Joshua D. Safer et al. 2008).I can't understand why people suffering with GD is being tauted as sinning. People who twist God's word to say what it doesn't say is the one sinning! Bottom line: Being transgender is not a sin because any patient with GD diagnosis receiving medical treatment is not sinning.

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

positive: Assigning children a gender at birth is harmful and restrictive I will be on the Con side (against), the harmful/restrictiveness of assigning a gender to a new born. Pro brings up a great point about Transgender and Cisgender, and how they're genetic makeup, or even they're personaly preference may cause them to believe they are assigned to the wrong gender. Men may believe they are women, vice versa. Those born with a different genetic make-up having both male and female sexual organs may feel different then what their parents decided. However, being assigned a gender is in no way harmful or restrictive to the respective child. -Only 6 states in the US restrict birth certificates from being ammened for gender changes. -25 states allow birth certificates to be ammended for gender reassignment without the need of a sexual reassignment surgery. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Therefore, if someone feels they are the wrong gender, they have every right (in 44 out of 50 states) to lawfully change their gender and be recognized as the gender they see fit. Feeling or being different than others is not harmful. It is simply how you were made. People can either accept the gender they were assigned and live life to the fullest, or choose to change their gender, legally, and live life to the fullest. The US has made great strides in accomodating those who may not be, or feel, simply male or female.

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

positive: Disney's Frozen will teach kids to be gay and is the work of the Devil. You cant teach someone to be gay you are born gay.And its not the work of the devil becouse there is no devil please use your brain.

positive: Gay Marriage "that means it's like god created men and women for nothing but to be gay and lesbian" HOW?! In what way, shape, or form does your previous story (that isn't even cited..) conclude that? That story was about homosexuallity, in a sense that if your gay, its who you are. You were born that way, and you shouldn't run away from who you are just because you were brought up in a home that was "ultra-christian". Although the gay gene remains inconclusive, it is almost apperant that homosexuality is somthing one is born with. - Con has conceded the debate, has not attacked any of my arguments what so ever and has yet to make a critical rebuttal. - Arguments extended Gay Gene Sources: http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.time.com... http://www.newscientist.com... http://www.livescience.com...

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

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

positive: Homosexuality is psychological and not biological. During this presentation and debate I have attempted not to speak for homosexuals, but instead let them speak to you and in their own words. The undercover video that I provided did precisely that " it allowed homosexuals to speak, in their own words, and in an environment in which they did not feel the need to be guarded. If you have not already done so I would urge you to do so. It is worth giving the link again; https://www.youtube.com... Simple questions were asked to a good cross section of homosexuals in a non- confrontational manner. This could easily be any sampling of homosexuals at any gay bar on a weekend. There is no reason to believe those homosexuals are unique. I would strongly suggest that it"s more plausible that this would be representative of the reactions and responses you would get if this were done in any gay bar or club in the country, and that the homosexuals in that video are not special cases at all. I watched it for research purposes, and by the end it was clear to me that the vast majority of the homosexuals in it had been victims of child molestation and rape between the ages of 2-12. Almost every one of them recounted an early sexual experience with an adult male. Many when asked said that until the violation they had never considered themselves to have an attraction toward men. They clearly state that the psyche developed only after the abuse. Naturally, as is the case with those who have been abused, some were confused as to the very fact that yes, they HAD been abused. Some victims of abuse develop a strange defence of the abuser. Most of the respondents spoke clearly and candidly. Even though those first experiences happened to them a long time ago, you can sense v easily that they recount them with bitterness and anger. If there was true merit to being "born gay" then why would it take the molestation and rape of a male child to act as a catalyst much of the time? Are we to believe that this early molestation simply had zero effect at all on the overall and sexual psyche of the child? That it would not indeed shape his outlook on relations, love and sex? Are we to dismiss the homosexuals themselves who bravely recount their experiences and who state they did not harbour sexual attraction to males until they violations? While it may be difficult to provide precise and all- inclusive data as to precisely what % of homosexuals were molested by an older male as a child (it"s not something many might want to admit), I would suggest any figures we do find would be on the conservative side. Notwithstanding, in the words of homosexuals themselves and this data, it should be absolutely clear that a significant % of homosexuals experienced abuse by an older male when a child. **** "Dr"s. Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse analysed data from what is probably the best survey of sexual behaviour in America. They write, "Experience of sexual abuse as a child, in other words, more than tripled the likelihood of later reporting homosexual orientation." They continue, "Other studies have reported the same trend." (4) In 1995, Dr. Thomas Schmidt, author of Straight and Narrow, cited two different studies about high rates of sexual abuse in homosexual and bisexual men. He writes: "Nevertheless, it is disturbing to find that although under 4 percent of boys are molested by men, a recent major study found that the rate of childhood molestation by men among homosexual or bisexual men was nearly ten times that (35 percent). It is also notable that 75 percent of homosexual men report their first homosexual experience prior to the age of sixteen, as compared to 22 percent of heterosexual men reporting their first heterosexual experience"" Dr. Dean Byrd has a Ph.D. in psychology, and post doctorate degrees in Child and Family Psychology and Behavioural Medicine. Now in his fourth decade of teaching, research and practice, he has provided psychological care for at least 400 men who have been distressed by their unwanted homosexual attractions. He concurs that childhood sexual abuse is a significant issue for many men with same-sex attractions, and points to even more studies that demonstrate this connection. He also notes that the homosexually-identified men often report earlier ages for their first sexual experience, but often don"t consider this abuse: There is indeed a clear disparity between homosexual men and heterosexual men and child sexual abuse. Using a non-clinical population of 465, Tomeo et al. found that 46 pe cent of the gay men reported being sexually abused as children compared to 7 percent of the matched heterosexual men. What"s intriguing is that 68 percent of the homosexual men did not identify as homosexual until after the abuse. Earlier research by Johnson and Shrier concluded that boys who had been sexually abused are 7 times more likely to identify as homosexual or bisexual than their heterosexual counterparts. Even more intriguing is that Friedman noted that the boys who later identified as heterosexual had a mean average of 15.7 as the time of their first sexual experience. For the boy who later identified as homosexual, the mean average was 12.7. http://www.citizenlink.com... One older homosexual in the undercover video admitted his youngest victim was 12yrs of age, before going on to recount how he was sexually abused by men at around that age and how from that point on, he was left both angry and with a whole new sexual identity. Perhaps when you take all of this into consideration, it is hardly surprising at all why the powerful and well- funded homosexual lobbyists should strive to have homosexuality removed from the DSM. After all, if it were still listed on the DSM today then the research could only finally arrive at the conclusion that in a disproportionate number of cases, abuse by an older male when they were a child was the pathogen that created the pathology. Such conclusions and routes would not suit politically connected and influential homosexuals. We have heard the words of leading British "gay activist" Peter Tatchell, who is a homosexual of course, and has been around homosexuals his whole life. Here are his words again; "Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that is all. Predisposition and determination are two different things. If heterosexually and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can't." And on the subject of Peter Tatchell, here is what he wrote to the Guardian in 1997. This wasn"t stated off the cuff. These were his own considered words that he took time to read before sending; In a 1997 letter to The Guardian, Tatchell defended an academic book about "boy-love," calling the work "courageous," before writing: "The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends " gay and straight, male and female " had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful" https://en.wikipedia.org... These words would, I am sure, put any rational person off from allowing their son to spend any time alone with such a person. As with abusers, you can see the language of justification in what he writes, and how he even goes as far as to claim the victims like it. Children aged NINE. Those are his thoughts and words, not my take on them. Doesn"t it dovetail so very well with the accounts and data of homosexuals being subjected to molestation by adult males as I"ve covered in depth? Isn"t it telling that rather than distance themselves and condemn Tatchell for those words, that to this day he is perceived by them as a hero by LGBT? They even give him the nick name of Saint Peter Tatchell. These are adult homosexuals who clearly see nothing wrong in sexual contact with male children and in their own words. Is male to male molestation the psychological catalyst in all cases? Most likely not. But I would be confident in saying that child abuse by an older male is the catalyst in many cases and perhaps even more than we openly know about. This cannot be denied nor can it be dismissed. What then of those who went through their childhood years with zero molestation or sexual contact with an older male? How do we explain that? I"d suggest that in those cases other triggers have been involved. Triggers that were perhaps absent of the molestation. This would be consistent with other psychological conditions, such as borderline personality disorder. BPD is said to be rooted in some level of childhood abandonment and yet with some who have it do so with no apparent abandonment. Some other factors must have been at play that evoked the pathology. By the same token, the % of adult male homosexuals with zero sexual contact as a minor can likely also be explain by a plethora of other child developmental factors. But in many cases it does appear that homosexuality is a psychological and pathological reaction to early sexualisation at the hands of an older male. It would also make sense why homosexuals have greater levels of drug misuse and other self- destructive behaviours, since they are actually victims of an early physical and psychological attack. The evidence that homosexuality is rooted in the psychological and not the genetic is powerful and seductive. Do heterosexuals give birth to "gay babies"? If so then only the very tiniest % of babies (perhaps 2%) would be "gay babies", and a great many of those must apparently rely on sexual abuse as a child to truly bring out their supposedly "natural" homosexuality. It may be possible that genetics and biology can be altered by what we ingest into our system though, what we eat and drink. Or at least certain chemicals in certain things. There is evidence for there being a great deal of estrogen mimickers in food and even in the water supply. I would not rule out that in some cases this could cause hormonal changes that would perhaps see a male child develop more effeminately if not a homosexual per se. http://www.healthline.com... http://www.alternet.org... http://www.nbcnews.com... However, although that would be interesting to debate in its own right, I stand by my opening position. Homosexuality is grounded in the psychological.

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

positive: Sexual anatomy Anal sex in a man stimulates the area around the prostrate, which creates sexual pleasure only achievable through sex with another man (or simulation of such). The most sensitive part of the female genitalia is the clitoris, which is not directly stimulated through vaginal intercourse with a man. Sex with another woman is more likely to stimulate the clitoris, and create sexual pleasure. Our human biology is designed for sex between people of both sexes. We are made to be bisexual.

positive: We are who we are based on our enviorment. Nature vs. Nurture Debate I agree that there is a combination at play but I believe that nurture plays a greater role. A child only learns from what he/she experiences. A child would not understand manners if a parent doesn't suggest and teach them as a child develops. The examples we observe help us distinguish right from wrong. This is the basis in which we create our own set values and discover who we are as an individual.

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

positive: Transsexuality is not a sin ( Biblical Perspective) What does the Bible say about male and female, masculinity and femininity? The Bible says that God created man in his own image -- male and female he created them ( Gen. 1:27). This shows that there is only two sexes: male and female. This also means only two genders: masculine and feminine.In fact, this means only one sexual orientation exists: heterosexuality.Hence, only one sort of marriage (i.e. the heterosexual marriage).There exists no same-sex marriage in the original paradigm which God has created. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Gen. 2:24 (NASB)Below is the Pre-fall original Paradigm on Sex ,Gender and Sexual orientation configuration: Male - XY choromosome ; male genitalia.Female - XX chromosome /female genitalia.Masculine -the state of being a male.Males* should follow male gender norm within contemporary culture ( 1 Cor. 11:14).Males* should not be effeminate ( 1 Cor. 6:9 KJV).Feminine -the state of being a female. Females* should follow feminine gender norm within contemporary culture ( 1 Cor. 11:3-16).Heterosexuality -those who are romantically attracted to the opposite sex.*References: http://biblehub.com...http://biblehub.com...https://www.biblegateway.com...http://biblehub.com...http://www.gotquestions.org...http://www.apa.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...What is Gender Dysphoria?Transsexualism is a phenomenon experienced by individuals who transition between either of the two major sexes, male and female, not due to social pressures or mental disorders, but due to an acute feeling of fundamental discomfort with the sex to which they have been assigned (gender dysphoria).SYMPTOMS OF GENDER DYSPHORIA Gender dysphoria behaviours in children can include: insisting that they are of the opposite sex disliking or refusing to wear clothes that are typically worn by their sex and wanting to wear clothes that are typically worn by the opposite sex disliking or refusing to take part in activities and games that are typically associated with their sex, and wanting to take part in activities and games that are typically associated with the opposite sex preferring to play with children of the opposite biological sex disliking or refusing to pass urine as other members of their biological sex usually do – for example, a boy may want to sit down to pass urine and a girl may want to stand up insisting or hoping that their genitals will change – for example, a boy may say he wants to be rid of his penis, and a girl may want to grow a penis feeling extreme distress at the physical changes of puberty If you are a teenager or adult with gender dysphoria, you may feel: without doubt that your gender identity is at odds with your biological sex comfortable only when in the gender role of your preferred gender identity a strong desire to hide or be rid of the physical signs of your sex, such as breasts, body hair or muscle definition a strong dislike for – and a strong desire to change or be rid of – the genitalia of your biological sex Without appropriate help and support, some people may try to suppress their feelings and attempt to live the life of their biological sex. Ultimately, however, most people are unable to keep this up. Having or suppressing these feelings is often very difficult to deal with and, as a result, many transsexuals and people with gender dysphoria experience depression, self-harm or suicidal thoughts. RReferences: http://www.apa.org...http://science.howstuffworks.com...http://www.nhs.uk...Neuroscience studies of transsexuals in recent years are increasingly suggesting that transsexuality is a biological phenomenon rather than a purely psychological one.References:http://ai.eecs.umich.edu...http://news.bbc.co.uk...http://www.abc.net.au...http://www.newscientist.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.tsroadmap.com...Gooren, L (2006). "The biology of human psychosexual differentiation". Hormones and behavior 50 (4): 589–601Below is the post-fall paradigm on Sex, Gender and Sexual orientation configuration:Male sex - male DNA;genitalia.Female sex - Female DNA; genitalia.masculinity - male gender identityfeminity - female gender identitySexual Orientations heterosexual - romantically attracted to the opposite sex.homosexual -romantically attracted to the same sex.bisexual - romantically attracted to both sexes.References: http://www.apa.org...What we will debate about? We will debate about the Biblical perspective on Transsexuality. Our debate challenge is centered on this. RULESPROROUND 1 ARGUMENTROUND 2 REBUTTALROUND 3 REBUTTALROUND 4 REBUTTAL AND CONCLUSIONCON ROUND 1 REBUTTALROUND 2 ARGUMENTROUND 3 REBUTTALROUND 4 REBUTTAL AND CONCLUSIONARGUMENT OF PRO If we'll handle the Scripture correctly as 1 Timothy 2:15 says there seems to be a biblical basis for Transsexuality as follows: Which of the following logical premises with logical conclusions are the real facts? Premise 1: Those with male’s body who desires to have sex with the same person having a male’s body because he felt that he’s a “she” is an obvious abnormality. Premise 2: The mind of those sort of people are the one having abnormality. Conclusion: Psychological treatment is a must for those people to make them normal. OR Premise 1: Those with male’s body who desires to have sex with the same person having a male’s body because he felt that he’s a “she” is an obvious abnormality. Premise 2: The body per se of those sort of people are the one which is not normal. Conclusion: Medical treatment is a must for those people to make them normal. Today, the former is dismissed in modern psychology and the latter is supported by modern science. Based on this current fact, then we can conclude that sexual orientation not gender identity is the categorical prohibition in the Leviticus Law. Premise 1: Leviticus Law is applied only to males having sexual intercourse with males ( Leviticus ) Premise 2: Leviticus Law against male-male intercourse. Premise 3: People who are natural born eunuchs aren’t males but females in gender (i.e. transgender). Conclusion: Leviticus Law is not against people with gender dysphoria but only against homosexual sex of males with heterosexual orientation. NOTELevitus 20:13 can only mean either of the following: 1) gay sex done by non-gay people.2) gay sex done by gay people.The former is clear on the text per se: If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. Leviticus 20:13 (NASB)Now the question is why would non-gay people have homosexual sex? We have a complete answer from Romans 1:18-32.They do it because of their religion.The religious setting we're talking about here is in the context of temple prostitution, fertility god worship. This is clearly an IDOLATRY in the sense of worshiping false deities by homosexual sex.1 Corinthians 6:9 shows this reality which is still condemned in N.T. times: 1 Cor. 6:9 (NIRV) Don't you know that evil people will not receive God's kingdom? ... Neither will men who are prostitutes or who commit homosexual acts.1 Cor. 6:9 (NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? ... nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders Cause(s) of Transexualism 1)Natural Cause: Biological ( post-adamic state) 2)Environmental Cause: Nurture ( of biological dispositions) Scientific explanation of the cause: Premise 1: Biological cause: Hormonal/ neurological (natural cause). Premise 2: Psychological cause: natural cause inevitably nurtured the mind to specific gender ( man/woman) Conslusion: Transexualism Biblical Explanation of the cause: Premise 1: God created each and every one of us in the womb ( Ps. 139:13) Premise 2: This sort of creation is in line with the effects of sin because it is within the realm of Post-Adamic fall ( Gen 3, Rom 8:22,Jn. 9:2) Premise 3: People who get attracted to same sex are not the same in gender ( Transsexualism)or people who get attracted to same sex have different sexual orientation (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual) that heterosexuality. Premise 4: There are only two sexes which is also two genders per se( man/woman) –Gen. 1:26-27). Conclusion: Transsexualism is a medical condition because it is a birth defect per se. IF Jesus' words in Matthew 19:12 about " eunuchs who were born that way" means the same thing as in his disciple's contemporary Philo in the 1st century and Christians in the 2nd and 4th centuries then it means that the case is resolved because these eunuchs are explicitly attracted to same sex.Ergo, the LGBT has its biblical support ( also as a back up supporting the biological etiology of it)and proof on the "we're born that way" reality. Source: Philo, On Joseph, XII. 58-60. Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, III. I. --NOTE that this only proves that homosexual attraction is present in the 2nd century but having the greater context both from the 1st and 4th century, we found out that homosexual attraction is not a sin and hence, saints ( i.e. christians) are accepted in the early church as the following historical evidence evinced: Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 37. XVI -XVII. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Council of Nicea, Canon 1, AD 325. The New Testament acknowledges marriage as the sole authority of sexual unions. Outside marrige, no sexual relations is allowed.From the historical and biblical arguments I have presented, it shows that Transgender can biblically marry as well as the LGB.

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

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

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

negative: Circumcision at Birth I'm done. How can I talk with such a person? OMG. For the last time. YOU CAN'T PREVENT IT CAUSE YOU CAN'T OPEN IT. YOU CAN'T CLEAN IT. THAT LIKE PUTTING AN OUTSIDE BANDAGE ON AN INTERNAL BLEEDING. ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WRITE. YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT. THE EYEBALL ARGUMENT IS STUPID. NO. WE ARE NOT CUTTING OUT THE WHOLE PENIS JUST A TINY BIT OF SKIN. YOU WOULD RATHER DENY 3 DISEASES THAN ADMIT I AM RIGHT.

negative: Gay adoption First of all: Are humans not a part of nature? I believe that humans can and should make their own decisions but not when these decisions affect others, which in this situation is affecting the growth of a child in a good and healthy environment. And I continue to support that a child will not grow in the same way with gay parents than with heterosexual parents. So adoption should not be legalized for gay people because they would not raise a child in the same way.

negative: Children need to be protected from the gays and their homosexual agenda. The Actual Resolution: Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. Gay couples should be allowed to adopt children since this is a policy that would be in the best interests of children, families, and society as a whole. Further, arbitrarily denying certain couples the ability to adopt children because of their sexual orientation is simply unacceptably detrimental to the aims of a civil society, and it is a position that is perpetuated by nothing other than flagrant discrimination. Of course, people's ignorance plays a large role in this matter. Some people have come to believe – almost invariably on bad evidence – that there is something fundamentally wrong with the minds of gay people. It's likely that many factors play into this sort of thinking, however, the point remains; many of the views people have about gays are simply not based on science, reason or empirical data. While some scientists may disagree about particular aspects of certain theories regarding sexual orientation, one thing is now universally agreed upon by the psychological and medical experts who specialize on this subject: there is nothing psychologically, emotionally, socially, mentally or morally wrong with people that are gay, and one's sexual orientation is mainly not a conscious choice. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that gay couples should not be allowed to raise children. C1: Evidence indicates that homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation that is not consciously chosen. There is nothing about gay individuals that makes them inadequate parents, and thus there is no reason to suppose that they shouldn't be allowed to raise children. And despite what many deeply pious (i.e. ignorant) people may believe, there is no reason whatsoever to think that homosexual orientations are anything other than normal and healthy variations of human nature. In fact, compelling evidence and recent scientific studies from both neuroscience and psychology now confirm this notion to an astonishing degree. Indeed, many of the negative ideas that people have held over the years about homosexuality are simply unsupportable in light of the mounds of evidence that has come forth on this subject. Luckily, the evidence that is being called upon can be found everywhere. As a result, there are good reasons to suppose that the sexual preference gays hold will not negatively impact their life or character. As it turns out, there is now compelling evidence – especially the evidence coming from neuroscience research – which indicates that a person's sexual orientation is determined in large part by the structure of their mind. For example, recent functional neuro-imaging experiments done by Ivanka Savic, Hans Berglund, and Per Lindstrï¿½m indicate two human pheromones - the progesterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) and an estrogen-like steroid estra-1,3-5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) – arouse sexual orientation specific responses that are key to activating the neural circuits of the anterior hypothalamus of those with a heterosexual and homosexual orientation. [1] To give some background information, it is important to point out that the anterior hypothalamus has been shown to be essential in integrating sensory cues that are involved in sexual behavior and sexual preference. Further, the study in question demonstrated that the anterior hypothalamus of the gay men in the experiment responded much in the same way to the pheromone (AND) that the anterior hypothalamus of heterosexual women did. Consequently, it is now fairly certain that one's sexual preference is largely involuntarily acquired, because it is not reasonable to believe that any person can willfully control the way in which their brain responds to electrochemical stimuli. If it were true that a person's sexual orientation were entirely a choice, then there should be no such correlations in the neural patterns between gay men and heterosexual females with respect to their sexual preference. Therefore, the evidence aforementioned demonstrates with much certainty that a person's mind does play a large role in determining whether that person is gay or straight. Some may be ignorant of these facts, but the evidence is clear; sexual orientation is not determined in large part by a conscious choice. Additionally, organizations with the most educated insights on this subject such as, The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, and The National Academy of Social Workers all agree on this topic: homosexuality is a normal orientation that should not be treated or viewed as a mental disorder, and sexual orientation is not a choice. [2] In particular, The National Institute of Mental Health did various scientific studies regarding homosexuality. [3] In the data that was accumulated by them, they determined that their "subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation." In light of these findings, The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 while maintaining that, "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities." [3] Later on, after they reviewed the data from this research, The American Psychological Association followed suit and adopted the same view, with other science organizations following them shortly thereafter. [3] Thus, it should be obvious that homosexuality is not some sort of mental disorder that leads to adverse affects in gay individuals. Given these facts, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to be anxious about gay couples adopting children; they are just as normal, virtuous, and well-adjusted as anyone else. ::Conclusion:: Not allowing two people to adopt a child based on their sexual preference is nothing more than an arbitrary form of discrimination. This is especially true since it is now clear that gay people's sexual preference is both normal and not subject to change. Simply put, there is no process of ratiocination, religious or otherwise, that can justifiably demonstrate why children should be denied access to the loving homes and families that gay couples can provide. Moreover, the "homosexual agenda," if such a thing even exists, is in no way something that should be opposed or feared. For thousands of years gay couples have been the victims of gay bashing (both figuratively and literally). It is, therefore, imperative that society takes steps to protect this vulnerable minority group and also insure that they have equal protections under the law. And allowing them to adopt children that need loving families will bring the world one step closer to actualizing this goal. Sources: 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. YouTube - Gay Education. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 21 May 2010. . 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...

negative: Sexual Orientation is a choice 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.

negative: Gay adoption Homosexual parenting is just as good as heterosexual parenting

negative: All our actions are determined in some way You can't choose what you don't want, and want always precedes choice in the chain of causality.

negative: All our actions are determined in some way This implies falsely that man operates on pure instinct from which he cannot vary, placing him on the level of animals.

negative: Our actions are determined by external factors or by choice Do one's choices count as an outside influence? That implies that the self that chooses how to act is a different self to the self that acts. We tend to assume that these parts of a person are an integrated whole.

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

negative: Gender and Sex are the same thing. (Sex as in the definition of male or female) Of course they are not the same. One of the words has 6 letters and the other has 3 letters. One of the words starts with G and the other starts with S.

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

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

negative: michael Sam's sexual orientation "Michael Sam's orientatin is no one elses business..." Michael Sam plays in the NFL. Lots of people watch the NFL and therefore it is everybody's business. "...it should not effect his NfL drafts chances." Clearly many people disagree with this. Everything has to have limits. "what he do behind when one else is around shouldnt affect him throwing a football." He is a NFL player and there is no being the scenes. This argument is unsupported. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

negative: Same Sex Marriage Now, the time has come for presentation of basic arguments. I will present three arguments against the legalization of SSM all of which involve economics to one degree or another. First, 1) Legalization of SSM hurts the economy; 2) Whatever newly created laws impair the economy ought not to be implemented or ought to be struck down; 3) Therefore, legalization of SSM ought not to be implemented. The next argument has to do with the impact of same-sex marriage on child-rearing and child behavior. The general flow of the argument is familial arrangements which increase instability or tend toward crime in a child's life tend to produce non-productive citizens. Whatever leads to non-productive citizens in undesirable. Therefore, SSM is undesirable. The third argument is about studying the economic impact of new family situations in society. Normally, what sociologists and economists would do would try to examine a smaller demographic which is trying the new family situation out before leaping to the conclusion that it will be beneficial to all of society. But that hasn't been done in the SSM in America case. Here, we tend to rush to the conclusion that if we can interpret the Constitution to include some new right for an individual, therefore, it ought to be implemented nation-wide. But how will the ripple effect change the rest of society and the economy? It is a simple mistake and error in judgment to assume that every time we can extend a novel right to some individual or class of persons that society as a whole will benefit from that change. For instance, if churches were shut down because they did not perform Same-sex marriages, how many jobs would be lost overnight? Already at the Supreme Court, as I write this, that is a very real possibility. Let's take a look at the first argument. How does SSM hurt the economy? Simply put, any vendors who refuse to violate their conscience and support same-sex marriages by catering or photography, etc., are fined and sometimes jailed and their business suffers. So, vendors can compete in the economy only if they sacrifice their beliefs. When they don't sacrifice their beliefs, they and their business suffer. That is not democratic nor fair. The next argument is about the negative effects of child-rearing in same-sex families. The results are very clear from the most comprehensive study performed by Mark Regnerus that same-sex parenting does not work: "Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF): Are"much"more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%) Have lower educational attainment Report less safety and security in their family of origin Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin Are more likely to suffer from depression Have been arrested more often If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male"and"female" [1] When same-sex partners attempt to have married status, they are then eligible to apply for adoption of children. If same-sex partners are treated like a normal, heterosexual married couple, that would be misleading since the children that they are raising are working against society rather than helping it. The third argument is pretty self-explanatory. If society does not wait until proper data is gathered before it makes a decision to legalize same-sex marriage, particularly as to how it affects the integrity of marriage, then it cannot make a sound and wise decision on the matter. I believe that one of the supreme court justices had made the comment, "You are asking us to decide on a phenomenon which is more recent than cell phone technology!" Thanks for the opportunity to interact on this topic. I look forward to the rebuttal phase of the discussion. [1] http://www.frc.org...

negative: Homosexuality should be accepted by humanity 1) Homosexuality is a viable lifestyle. (By this I mean the probability of obtaining and transmitting a venereal disease vs. that of heterosexuals. ) -The perception of homosexuals is that they are a vector for AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, etc. -The fact of the matter is that all STDs can be transmitted regardless of sexuality to one's partner depending on the sexual act committed. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Campus Resource Center stated on its website (accessed 2006): "The truth is that being GLBT does not give you AIDS. Certain sexual practices, certain drug use behaviors and other factors can put you at risk for catching HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). " 2006 - UCLA Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Campus Resource Center -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -Being a homosexual does not increase the probability of being an alcoholic; however, this may appear to be the case only because society throws a spotlight on gay individuals. The act of doing this highlights personal attributes as being the cause of taboo practices or illnesses instead of considering situational factors. Gregory M. Herek, PhD, Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis, wrote in a 1991 article in American Psychologist titled "Avoiding Heterosexist Bias in Psychological Research": "Phenomena should not be assumed to result from sexual orientation simply because they are observed in the gay community. Alcoholism, for example, is a serious problem in some sectors of the gay community. Attributing it to homosexuality per se, however, exemplifies the fundamental attribution bias. .. It explains behavior entirely in terms of personal characteristics while ignoring situational factors. " 1991 - Gregory M. Herek, PhD . http://borngay.procon.org... 2) Homosexuals have the ability to effectively raise an adopted child. -The reality is that homosexuals have the same capacity to raise a child as heterosexuals. In fact, it would be beneficial to society if adoption laws in various states ended their prohibition of gay adoption in order to stimulate the increase in adoption. Growing with two parents, regardless of sex, would be more beneficial than growing up in an impoverished home with a single parent. ""Most children in the United States do not live with two married parents. In fact, according to the 2000 census, only 24% homes were composed of a married mother and father with children living at home. The Florida court argues that children are better off raised in a two-parent heterosexual household. In fact, scientific studies have shown that children who grow up in one or two-parent gay or lesbian households fare just as well emotionally and socially as children whose parents are heterosexual. Studies have shown that children are more influenced by their interactions with their parents, than by their sexual orientation. With this in mind, the American Association of Pediatrics supports gay and lesbian couples adopting children. " ""There is no legal reason why gays and lesbians should be denied the right to adopt children. The law only hurts children waiting to be adopted and deprives loving parents who would care for these children. " . http://lesbianlife.about.com... "Many lesbians and gay men are parents; others wish to be parents. In the 2000 U. S. Census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. Although comparable data are not available, many single lesbians and gay men are also parents, and many same-sex couples are part-time parents to children whose primary residence is elsewhere. As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents have increased, some people have raised concerns about the well-being of children in these families. Most of these questions are based on negative stereotypes about lesbians and gay men. The majority of research on this topic asks whether children raised by lesbian and gay parents are at a disadvantage when compared to children reaised(sic) by heterosexual parents. The most common questions and answers to them are these: Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents? For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers. Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity? For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? Again, studies of personality, self-concept and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers. Are children of lesbian and gay parents likely to have problems with social relationships? For example, will they be teased or otherwise mistreated by their peers? Once more, evidence indicates that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with their peers and adults. The picture that emerges from this research shows that children of gay and lesbian parents enjoy a social life that is typical of their age group in terms of involvement with peers, parents, family members and friends. Are these children more likely to be sexually abused by a parent or by a parent"s friends or acquaintances? There is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents" gay, lesbian or bisexual friends or acquaintances. In summary, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents " concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people " are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment or overall well-being. " . http://www.apa.org... 3) While a minority, Homosexuality is a natural orientation that has merit. -Many view homosexuality as an unnatural practice that is distorting what nature (or god) intended. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality flourishes in the animal kingdom as an integral and vital aspect of many species. "One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order? " exhibition. Homosexual behaviour(sic) has been observed in 1,500 animal species. "We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behavior is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives. " Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced(sic) that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples. . http://www.news-medical.net... -If god does exist then he obviously is not concerned with other species being homosexual, because it is rampant in all corners of the world and in a large portion of the animal kingdom. 4) Homophobia is detrimental to any nation that condones such a practice. -Homophobia is continually perpetuated by stereotypes and unfamiliarity with the nature of sexual orientation. Homosexuality is not a disease, it cannot be eradicated with a vaccine. By verbally assaulting an individual based on characteristics that cannot be altered, you are psychologically damaging the individual. The action in the previous statement leads to an increased chance of suicide, alcohol abuse, and a myriad of issues that could have been avoided. "Recently published as a doctoral thesis in clinical psychology, this investigation examined environmental risks and protective factors that counterbalanced them in LGB youth. "Compared to their heterosexual peers, suicide rates are up to 14 times higher among lesbian, gay and bisexual high school and college students," says Michael Benibgui, who led this investigation as part of his PhD thesis at Concordia's Department of Psychology and Centre for Research in Human Development. " "Depression and anxiety are widespread," he continues. "To learn why this occurs, we studied the physiological impact of homophobic social environments on a group of healthy young LGB adults. " . http://www.sciencedaily.com... Because I am running out of room I am forced to end my arguments here. I look forward to hearing my opponent's arguments and again thank him for taking part in my debate.

negative: Birth Control is Immoral honestly i read the debate wrong and i just wanna surrender cause i don't wanna do it...

negative: Resolved: US government ought legislate against employment discrimination against sexual orientation My opponent had comp problems, but it's all fixed now. Per request, I'll skip this round, and we'll start the debate in round 3.

negative: Resolved: Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation. Accepted.

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

negative: The user known as Danielle used dishonest tactics in her same-sex parenting debate. I'm sorry that Con evidently thinks this is a waste of time. It seems obvious to me that, since she accepted this, she would have a responsibility to take it seriously. Con seems to be unable to bold and italicize her round (perhaps she used a different browser?), but she posted it correctly on the forums, so here's a link: [http://debate.org...] Number 1. "My point was that they CAN and DO. I have no idea how many times I have to repeat myself. I was the instigator of the debate. I was Pro. I was making a proactive argument that there are no good parenting qualities or techniques that are exculusive to heterosexuals or males and females, specifically. You apparently agree! You've never argued otherwise, and you failed to list a single trait proving that assertion wrong. However, instead of saying "Yes it's true" and conceding that as a contention in my favor, you continuously whine that I am "straw manning" you and that it's not your burden to provide an answer." I have absolutely no idea what Con thinks she is arguing, or what point she is trying to respond to. You made a proactive argument that there were no specific characteristics that homosexuals could not have. I did not argue. You were right. I conceded this point. My entire accusation here was that she pretended this was essential to my case. That's what a strawman is- twisting your opponent's position into something it isn't and refuting that. My case never was that heterosexuals had specific characteristics that homosexuals could NOT possess. It is both a strawman and a semantic. This is what Con said: "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." My response: "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)." She said that homosexuals could have any characteristic that heterosexuals could possess. This is true. I conceded this, as you can see from the quote itself. My assertion that this was a semantic is obvious- she was arguing that homosexuals COULD have the parenting capabilities necessary to raise children effectively. What did this have to do with anything? I responded that I agreed with this and that "it was generally not the case." In other words, I was arguing that heterosexual couples generally had those characteristics- as I should have! She then responded to me: Her response: "If Con thinks that there are qualities or attributes that a straight person can posess that make them a good parent that gay people can NOT possess, he needs to include what those specific traits are. Otherwise this point is in favor of Pro." Then: "There are no parenting traits a heterosexual can possess that a gay person can not. Con wasted space saying I was exploiting the word "can" in the resolution (based on Mirza"s comments). My point is that any quality or trait you associate with good parenting - i.e., responsible, caring, loving, etc. - can be possessed by gay people. Ergo, good parenting qualities or techniques are not limited to heterosexual parents. Con never negated this idea; he dropped this contention and chose to whine about something irrelevant." What does the fact that "good parenting qualities or techniques are not limited to heterosexual parents" have to do with ANYTHING I was saying? You repeated yourself and did not respond to what I said. Rather, your claim that I "dropped this contention and chose to whine about something irrelevant" was basically saying that you had won this point. Who cares? It had nothing to do with my case. "You completely fail to see that you can concede an argument(s), and that isn't the same as conceding the entire debate. You should have acknowledged the argument that I made was true, and moved on to explain why you felt it was irrelevant or not enough to win me the debate." What does that have to do with ANYTHING? I did concede that there were no characteristics homosexuals could not possess, as you can see by reading my first round. You repeated yourself and demanded that I prove otherwise! "You're being completely dishonest in saying I am "strawmanning" you when it was never your argument to begin with, as you rightfully point out. You don't even know the definition of straw man apparently yet you accuse me of using it." This is what a strawman is: 1. Person 1 has position X. 2. Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. 3. Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Let me put it more simply: I had the burden to prove that children were generally raised more effectively with a mother and a father than with two of each. It was not my contention that no homosexual couple possessed the characteristics that children needed to be raised well. I conceded this and pointed out why it was irrelevant. You repeated yourself and pretended that I needed to refute this. But it was not and never was my contention. You responded to a assertion I did not make and demanded that I prove homosexual couples could NEVER possess those characteristics even after I explained my position to you. You did not refute anything I said. You have strawmanned me and exploited the resolution. Con is using dishonest tactics RIGHT NOW. I said this in my previous round! Indeed, when addressing my question, she simply quoted it out of context and left out everything else. She has unlimited characters, so I don't see why she would even need to do that. That question ("What exactly did you hope to gain through this argument other than proving that homosexuals COULD have the characteristics to raise children properly?") makes no sense without the rest of my accusation. Next round, Con needs to quote and respond to my argument in full rather than taking certain statements out of context. "Drop this contention, for everybody's sake. You haven't proven a shred of dishonesty on my part, so it's not a legitimate contention in your favor." We have two scenarios here: Con is either the stupidest, laziest, and most inattentive debater on this site, or she deliberately used dishonest tactics. Courts do not let people go because they can't read their minds and don't know for sure what they intended. They require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is what I have provided: REPETITION of blatant misinterpretations of my arguments even after I pointed them out. Danielle isn't stupid or insane. We have overwhelming evidence that she did, in fact, exploit the resolution and strawmanned me. May I remind the readers of this little gem?: "He was arguing (but never proved) that there are parenting traits that ONLY a man or ONLY a woman can inherently possess, which of course is absurd." Yes, she directly lied about her position in Round 2 of this debate by saying that it was only about generalities. Number 2. "We both agree that having two same-sex parents are better than one because two are simply better than one thanks to the additional benefits. Are you following? Good. Now, the article explained the benefits of having two parents - which MouthWash and I agree on - including dual income, additional support, more resources, etc. Still following? Awesome. So, much like contention 1, which explained that there are no particular traits exclusive or inherent to heterosexuality or males and females in particular, I was simply noting that all of the benefits of having an additional partner could be achieved by gay couples as well as straight couples! Get it?! Just as my point 1 my argument was that gays and males/females could be trustworthy, responsible, caring, etc. and have all the qualities of good parents (those traits are not gender or sexuality specific), I was acknowledging in point 2 that the additional benefits of having two parents could be equally applied to gay couples of either sexuality or gender as well. I simply cited the study to indicate what the benefits of two parents were, hence the word COUPLES in the resolution. I wanted you to again acknowledge that gays of either gender could provide the same additional support of a second parent. Again, we are talking about gay vs. straight couples." Oh, so you were trying to establish that ANY two-parent family, regardless of sex, gives the same benefits of having two parents to their kids? But here's a problem: that's OBVIOUS. It has nothing to do with how homosexual couples stack up against heterosexual couples. These benefits that Con points out are inherent to two-parent families. Both types of couples obviously provide them. There was no reason to point this out. "Re: As I have said, the study was not designed nor capable of finding discrepancies between how effectively same-sex couples parented in comparison to regular ones, or find (as Con said) certain characteristics that would more likely be emulated by traditional couples." "And as *I* have said, this is completely irrlevant." I'm sorry, when did you say this beforehand? If you had, this might be justifiable as a misunderstanding. But you never explained this even after I argued my viewpoint. "The study had absolutely nothing to do with comparing gay vs. straight couples. I never said that it was about that, so the fact that you keep repeating yourself as if you're somehow enlightening us to some discrepancy is just frankly embarrassing on your part. Again, THE STUDY IS NOT ABOUT COMPARING GAY VS. STRAIGHT COUPLES. Instead, the study was about finding specific qualities of couples in general (two parents) raising a child, regardless of their gender or sexuality. The entire point was to prove that like good parenting qualities, none of these qualities (like providing additional resources) were exclusive to one particular sex or sexuality either." No, you're just making up a new excuse to justify your argument. I conceded that having a two-parent family was better than one, as anyone who reads the debate can clearly see. You responded to my concession by saying: "No, it's relevant because two gay parents can raise children just as well as two staight parents. I've included a psychological study that confirmed this. Con seems to agree. The point goes to Pro." There are two things very wrong here. 1. Your claim that it flatly proved that homosexual couples could raise children as well as heterosexual couples (i.e. the resolution). Looking at this by itself, it may have been simple inability to communicate your point, but the fact that you were directly responding to my EXPLANATION that it was not relevant to my case throws this defense into doubt. 2. The fact you said "the point goes to Pro." Yes, I did concede this, but the only context I've ever heard that kind of statement in are real, two-sided arguments where one person refutes the other person's position. In other words, you were pretending that you had won something through this, when in fact you had simply affirmed an obvious fact that I made clear I wasn't going to contest. Had you been honest you would have made it clear to me that you understood it was irrelevant to my case and stopped going on about it, especially after I explained my objections to you. You later said this: "While 2 parents are better than one (Con agrees), it doesn"t matter if those parents are same-sex (Con disagrees)." This is a lie. It doesn't matter if those parents are homosexual or heterosexual when it comes to benefits derived solely from having two parents. I said that that was obvious when I conceded it: "Of course having a two-parent family is better than one. The economic benefits alone help children. Irrelevant." "I included a study validating that 2 same-sex parents provide the same benefits to parenting that 2 heterosexual parents do: double the resources, emotional support, etc. Con said this too was irrelevant, but it proves that what parentsprovide and not their sexuality is what matters." Again, resources and emotional support are not the be-all and end-all of parenting. I've said this in my previous round, so why do I end up having to repeat myself? "Re: In addition, I'd like the readers to note that she seems to have forgotten all about her previous point in which she demanded that I prove that homosexuals could NEVER have certain characteristics and claims that traditional couples "being more likely to emulate" them was enough. This is enough to prove that it was deliberate rather than a simple misunderstanding. Hilariously, she also used this in the comments after the debate in order to convince people to vote for her: "He was arguing (but never proved) that there are parenting traits that ONLY a man or ONLY a woman can inherently possess, which of course is absurd." Absurd indeed." "Copy and paste whatever quotes of mine that you're referring to, and source them accordingly." I did copy and paste your quote JUST NOW: "He was arguing (but never proved) that there are parenting traits that ONLY a man or ONLY a woman can inherently possess, which of course is absurd." It is from the comment section of our debate, as I JUST SAID. And this is from your R2 rebuttal to this very same point: "or that a male/female dynamic would be more likely to emulate certain characteristics compared to gay couples." "What's your point here? You're cherry picking random sentences that I allegedly made about homosexualus NEVER having certain qualities." I quoted the full sentence. It is actually located in the comments section five pages back in case anyone's interested. "However, what I can say was that I never said you had to prove that homosexuals could NEVER have certain characteristics. What I challenged was to find even a single good parenting quality that was exclusive or inherent to heterosexuality - or - that gay people typically did not posess (or even less likely to posess). My point was that certain traits are not applicable to one specific sex or sexuality." First of all, this shold have been in my first accusation, but Con decided to abandon the numbering, so I'll move on. Let's look at what was actually said, for starters. "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." This very clearly implies I needed to prove no gay person could possess those characteristics. I responded by saying this was a semantic. Danielle then replied to me: "If Con thinks that there are qualities or attributes that a straight person can posess that make them a good parent that gay people can NOT possess, he needs to include what those specific traits are. Otherwise this point is in favor of Pro." Here, she does claim that she was talking about characteristics of the sexes (implying her first statement was just another failure to communicate basic arguments). However, the readers can see that she was blatantly lying about her claim that she was only demanding a parenting characteristic that was simply inherent to heterosexuality (that gay people were less likely to possess). She directly said that she was talking about traits that gays CANNOT possess. Regardless of whatever spin she puts on it here, her own words convict her. Take a look at another response: "There are no parenting traits a heterosexual can possess that a gay person cannot. Con wasted space saying I was exploiting the word "can" in the resolution (based on Mirza"s comments). My point is that any quality or trait you associate with good parenting - i.e., responsible, caring, loving, etc. - can be possessed by gay people. Ergo, good parenting qualities or techniques are not limited to heterosexual parents. Con never negated this idea; he dropped this contention and chose to whine about something irrelevant." She has lied about her intentions, even after I explained to her again and again during the course of the debate that this was not about whether gays could possess these parenting skills. It simply can't be denied any longer at this point. The fact that this occured so many times in a row most definitely proves that this was a deliberate and dishonest tactic used to make my response more difficult and shove a completely incomprehensible burden onto me. "Testosterone is part of the equation that makes guys more inclined to have "rough and tumble" play with their kids, which is a quality MouthWash suggested made having a male/female dynamic more superior. But a woman having more testosterone would incline her to engage in the same type of rough and tumble play that a child could enjoy with a man. As such, the child of a lesbian couple (for example) would probably not be missing out on any rough and tumble play that they would get from having a man in their life." Con seems to be arguing the previous debate rather than if she used dishonest tactics in it. Regardless, she never brought this up during the debate and it has no bearing on this one. (Also, she would have had to prove testosterone was the be-all and end-all of parenting behavior, disregarding psychological factors to giving birth or being a father, or inherent behaviors programmed into the sexes, as we know homosexuals don't always act like the opposite sex. In addition, rough-and-tumble play isn't the only things males provide, as evidenced by this source: [http://www.civitas.org.uk...] which I provided in the actual debate). "Throughout our debate, I challenged MouthWash to use either anecdotal evidence or scientific studies to provide me with examples of things that kids with gay parents said they were missing out on. He failed to do so." Lie. I provided the rough-and-tumble analogy, I pointed out that a mother's close and soft behavior was critical for development, and I gave the above source, which you completely ignored. Let's keep this debate on track and argue only about whether you used dishonest tactics. Number 3. "Re: Again, she shoved the burden to prove that children NEEDED opposite-sex parents to have proper care. In other words, I now had to prove that they had characteristics that gay couples could never have." "What I said: There are innumerable people raised by gay parents who turn out perfectly well adjusted, and note that they didn't miss out on any father/ mother figures in their life... The real purpose of this point was to combat the notion that children needed two opposite-sex parental figures in order to gain certain benefits." "First of all, it is absolutely Pro's burden to either negate or accept the contentions I provided in my favor. That isn't "shifting the burden." That is standard procedure in any debate. It's up to the audience to decide the merit of my contentions." What the are you rambling about? What does this have to do with my accusation at all? I said that you were "shifting the burden" because you were acting like I needed to refute something that was irrelevant. She began with an anecdotal argument: "My parents can throw a baseball and take me hiking just as well as any man could. I've always had a plethora of male role models. I never felt that I was missing anything by not having that dad for me." Kids with gay parents aren't missing out on these things." I responded: "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." Her: "The real purpose of this point was to combat the notion that children needed two opposite-sex parental figures in order to gain certain benefits." (Notice the word "needed" is another semantic. I try to point this out below). Me: "Just because someone *can* turn out well adjusted, it does not follow that most will. You have reached a generalization based on insufficient evidence." Her: "The exact same comment can be applied to kids with heterosexual parents. They CAN turn out fine, but there are no guarantees." Con's responsibility was to explain why she used the anecdotal evidence. She claimed that it was to refute the notion that homosexuals could NEVER have characteristics allowing them to parent effectively (note that this essentially affirms my previous point about her using the characteristics argument to exploit the resolution). When I pointed this out... she pointed out in turn that children raised in a traditional family also had no guarantees of success. The problem was that this was obvious. Yes, my demand that she not use examples to prove that homosexuals *can* parent effectively applied to me as well. The problem is that this had absolutely nothing to do with MY accusation of her semantic use and that I never used the alleged semantics I was talking about. It's a completely unexpected and bizarre turnaround- one second I'm accusing her of lawyering, the next she goes and says that the same rules apply to me as well! And through it all, it ended up with her NEVER RESPONDING TO MY ACCUSATIONS. She clearly used smoke-and-mirror tactics to obfuscate the issue and this point is affirmed. "Pro's responsibility is to explain why they are insufficient. The intention of my argument was PERFECTLY clear. Indeed, it was to highlight that two opposite sex parents were not needed for good parenting. Proving that is the entire purpose of this debate." Well, this is awkward. Have fun proving that two opposite sex parents aren't needed for good parenting (it'll take about the viewing time of Zach Wahl's speech). My work here is done. As anyone can see above, I did respond sufficiently, only to be evaded by bizarre finger-pointing. "- hence why I made not one, not two, but many arguments in my favor. Pro honestly thinks he can say "These contentions don't matter" and not have to argue against them. Quite clearly that's for the audience to decide. His job is to refute, negate, or diminish the relevance of my contentions - NOT whine that I am imposing a burden on him to argure against something he can't refute, and then name drop random fallacies." I don't need to argue against your assertion that kids raised by traditional families "can turn out fine, but there are no guarantees." That's because nothing in my arguments had to do with that. It was completely random, inane, and pointless in context. "Re: Again, she shoved the burden to prove that children NEEDED opposite-sex parents to have proper care. In other words, I now had to prove that they had characteristics that gay couples could never have." "Indeed, I said "The real purpose of this point was to combat the notion that children needed two opposite-sex parental figures in order to gain certain benefits." It's obvious that Pro is the only relying on semantics and manipulation given I've explained the purpose of my argument multiple times." Um, you're basically digging your own grave now. Your justification for using anecdotal evidence is that children don't need opposite sex parents? Way to prove that I'm relying on semantics and manipulation. Obviously if some gay couple has those characteristics they'll raise children just as well as straights. The reason I'm explaining this time and time again each time she makes a ridiculous claim is because I fear she'll hold that claim up and say "MouthWash never responded to this one!" "I won't repeat this again-- My point was that MouthWash completely, utterly, and 100% failed to provide a single reason or explanation as to why heterosexual parents were preferable or better at providing certain qualities. His ONLY answer in the debate was "rough and tumble" play by fathers had certain benefits, which I have already responded to both in this debate and the other many times over. It's clear that he simply failed to meet his burden, and the fact that I pointed that out repeatedly he is now considering "dishonest" based on my outlining of what I meant and what his burden was." Rough and tumble play was most certainly not the only thing I used to argue, as I have previously explained. "Re: Mothers tend to speak soothingly and softly in repetitive rhythms to their infants and snugly hold them. Fathers tend to provide more verbal and physical stimulation than mothers. As babies grow older, many come to prefer playing with their fathers who provide unpredictable, stimulating, and exciting interaction." "Pro has the audacity to say "My claims had absolutely nothing to do and were not dependent on having the children be biologically related to the parents or sharing their DNA." Yes! Pro actually said that in his last round! Of course, referencing a mother or a father absolutely and 100% had to do with shared biological ties and DNA." That's another semantic use. Simply because the people involved evidently shared DNA does not mean that these were dependent on being related. Has Con never understood that correlation does not imply causation? Here's the source [http://www.civitas.org.uk...] As you can see, there was never any claim I used that was predicated on them being the biological parents. It is a strawman. "It's quite obvious that anyone could talk soothingly to a baby; Pro's point was that a *mother* does it - or does it in a certain way - and my rebuttal was that it was not necessary for a mother to do it. Anyone could do it. Pro had to prove that kids with gay parents (I'm sorry... a same-sex couple as parents) are less likely to receive this kind of soothing attention, which of course he didn't." "The fact that he referenced a mother/father and then said that his claim had "absolutely nothing to do with biology" is a blatant lie - one of many." Lie. My point was never that a biological mother needed to do it. Your rebuttal was not that it was not necessary for a biological mother to do it. Obviously when I pointed out that "Mothers tend to speak soothingly and softly in repetitive rhythms to their infants and snugly hold them," THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER SHE SHARED THEIR DNA. Pro is simply saying that I said "mother" so that must mean I was talking about a biological mother even though I EXCESSIVELY MADE CLEAR during the debate that my argument was not the biological ties or DNA were required. She ignored it all. Read: "Again, you've avoided any real debate by strawmanning me. I have stated, very clearly, that it was an unhealthy relationship and the lack of a father or a mother that affected children. Sexual orientation in itself has nothing to do with it." And: "This has nothing to do with "biological ties," but rather SS families vs traditional ones. This is the last time I will repeat myself." My actual point was that fathers and mothers (not necessarily biological ones, for reasons obvious to anyone capable of making basic inferations) had different parenting traits and that children need those in order to have a healthy upbringing. Thus, homosexual couples could not parent effectively because they were the same sex. Here, let me quote everything I said so that Con doesn't take it all out of context: "Moving on, your only response to my source about the effects of a natural (this does not imply being biologically related for reasons I'll explain later, and which should have been obvious to Con) father is one of your own sources. I grant that my source was obscure and undetailed, but I have demonstrated why your sources are unreliable, and thus my case still stands. I further point out that mothers and fathers relate to their children differently:" "Mothers tend to speak soothingly and softly in repetitive rhythms to their infants and snugly hold them. Fathers tend to provide more verbal and physical stimulation than mothers.As babies grow older, many come to prefer playing with their fathers who provide unpredictable, stimulating, and exciting interaction.[1.http://www.civitas.org.uk...] Recent evidence also shows that fathers differentially impact brain development. Without the father's spontaneous and energetic playing, the child's left hemisphere develops improperly [2.Schore & McIntosh, 2011]." But let's move on. "He also said, "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." My response to him was completely accurate and not at all dishonest. He referenced NATURAL, biological parenting in his arguments, and I dismantled them. Then he said his claims had "nothing to do with biology." Is this a joke?" "Natural father" could be interpreted to mean simply that people without their natural fathers had one less parent to go with. Even if they had adopted parents, the effects of not having a father in their early years or possibly being in a foster home (as such scenarios are likely) would produce this effect. This seems to be a typical association-causation fallacy because I was obviously not saying that adopted parents couldn't care for their kids as well as biological parents, which would be ridiculous. How do we know that's what I meant? Because my source specifically said so: [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...]. She simply quoted me and left out my source entirely. Which is rather dishonest itself, isn't it? "However other studies note that compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They also have higher self-esteem and confidence, and tend to break rules less, indicating that teen pregnancy is likely not in the cards... This debate is about one's sexual orientation affecting their ability to parent - not whether or not you can have the same biological ties to someone who is not related to you (obviously not). As such, I haven't seen any evidence that fathers and mothers aren't interchangeable insofar as being positive male/ female role models." "As you can see, there's nothing dishonest about my rebuttal or assessment of Pro's bad arguments." No, not here. I JUST QUOTED what arguments I felt were dishonest, but it seems you decided to ignore me. So I'll do it again: "Nowhere did he establish that biological ties to parents were significantly important. He presented a study that demonstrated the quality of care infants receive affecting their development. This source never said that the care had to come from biological parents. The same thing applies to Con"s other sources-- the study indicating the benefits of rough and tumble play never mentioned the importance of the father figure"s DNA. Instead it noted the benefits of the interaction, but did not discount the same benefits from similar interaction experienced by kids with two moms or two dads." In other words, she dismissed my sources based on the fact that they didn't prove that DNA was important. A complete lie. Good luck defending this one. Number 4. "Re: This argument is wrong because it has absolutely nothing to do with each couples' parenting capabilities, and because unplanned pregnancies are not inevitable aspects of heterosexual relationships." "I said I dropped the point about unplanned pregnancies multiple times in the last debate, and explained that once again in this debate. The fact that he's bringing up a dropped contention (and I explained why I dropped it - in relevance to the contention that HE dropped) is bad conduct on his part. He's desperate. I advised him for my sake and the readers' sake to drop these blatantly dumb contentions that are not in his favor - especially those over dropped arguments which were therefore rendered completely irrelevant to the last debate. They weren't part of the judging process, so the fact that he's bringing them up when for all intents and purposes they were rendered meaningless is just sad and pathetic. He's wasting our time for no reason." Yes, you dropped it during the debate becuase you said that it invalidated my own arguments about gays being depressed (which is wrong, but this isn't the time). My point was that you, rather than explain why you brought it up in the first placed, used smoke-and-mirror tactics by evading an explanation and dropped it by saying it hurt my own case (in which case you evidently fine with me being right). "Re: I NEVER used anecdotal evidence to establish that homosexuals were depressed. Rather, I claimed that homosexual relationships themselves were unhealthy and led to depression and other emotional or mental problems... This means that they were inherently tied with homosexual relationships, in contrast to unplanned pregnancies which are entirely avoidable." "Saying homosexual relationships lead to depression is anecdotal, because clearly depression is not inherent to homosexuality. If that was Pro's argument, he should have made it. Clearly that's not true - not a single psychological association would ever validate such a broad, untrue assertion. I'm gay and I'm not depressed. I know tons of people in gay relationships who are not depressed." No, I'm not exactly saying that it is inherent to homosexuality, but rather an inherent consequence to it. I still never used anecdotal evidence to establish that. By saying that no psychological association would ever agree with me is arguing directly against the statement, which we are NOT doing here. In addition, I did not drop this because of anything Con said, but because of the extreme difficulty in finding sources... as I have said again, and again... and again. I don't know why I have to repeat myself. Number 5. "Re: What she was doing here was pretending that she had won something when she simply rehashed an irrelevant point over and over again. I said that this was a strawman. As for now, I have nothing to refute until my opponent actually addresses my accusation." "No. I'm not strawmanning Pro. Look at his hilarious explanation and see how he defeats his own argument. 1. [Danielle] claimed that sex lives had nothing to do with parenting skills. 2. [MouthWash] claimed that: a) kids needed a mother and a father b) homosexual relationships (not sex lives) were unhealthy 3. [Danielle] repeated herself and said that she had won the point. 4. [MouthWash] pointed out that she had won nothing because: a) I never claimed that sex lives affected parenting skills b) the fact that sex live don't affect parenting skills had no bearing on my case 5. Con repeated herself again and claimed that she had won the point. Pro blatantly srawmanned ME. If my argument was that a parent's sex lives have nothing to do with parenting skills, then Pro must ARGUE AGAINST THAT. He either has to concede it, negate it or undermine it's relevance. As you can see - by his own admission - he responded by saying kids need a mother and a father, and that homosexual relationships were unhealthy. What does a mother/father dynamic or gay relationships have to do with a parents' sex lives affecting their parenting skills?" Con completely misrepresents my accusation and my actual response. Let me use the same syllogism with quotes. 1. [Danielle] claimed that sex lives had nothing to do with parenting skills. "Con must explain how a parent's sexuality, either homo or hetero, has a specific impact on a child's behavior." 2. [MouthWash] claimed that: a) kids needed a mother and a father b) homosexual relationships (not sex lives) were unhealthy (The above were just my argument for the debate.) 3. [Danielle] repeated herself and said that she had won the point. "Con dropped this, so the point goes to Pro." <-- Dishonesty. 4. [MouthWash] pointed out that she had won nothing because: a) I never claimed that sex lives affected parenting skills "I can't understand why you think you've won anything here. My case has been about homosexual relationships (not necessarily who they have sex with) and the impact of not having a mother or a father." b) the fact that sex lives don't affect parenting skills had no bearing on my case "Irrelevant because I never even brought it up." 5. Con repeated herself again and claimed that she had won the point. "Whether a parent has sex with a man or woman doesn't affect their parental judgment. Con dropped this in R2, and in R3 responded that it's "irrelevant." Clearly it isn"t " it proves that one's sexuality doesn"t impact their ability to parent effectively." As you can see I never contested it and claimed that it was irrelevant. However, I was saying that it was never part of my case and by doing so, dismissed it. I shouldn't have had to concede it at all. Common sense should inform her that my arguments did not contest this assertion and so she should not pursue it, much less claim that the "point" had gone to her. "I said I won the point because MouthWash failed to explain how a parent's sexual endeavors affect or harm their relationship with their child." Yes, as if you could "win" something that was never at stake- the only context I've ever heard this in is when a debater refutes another debater directly, as I've said. My accusation is that you pretended to win a legitimate point rather than rehash an irrelevant one that I conceded. Please. "Clearly, it was an argument for MY case, not his. I never strawmanned him, and his rampant accusations of random fallacies are dishonest on HIS part, not mine." "Strawman" may not have been the precise term, but it is quite similar. After all, you did imply that it was part of MY case by saying you had won. Number 6. "Re: Allow me to repeat myself- I was not arguing that a natural father was needed to parent effectively. I was arguing aginst opponent's contention that a lesbian's male friend taking her son out to the ball game somehow replaced a father. This is a strawman." Let's see what I said: "As you can see, this was entirely relevant to my case as it effectively argued against one of my opponent's contentions of the importance of a biological mother and father (or rather, inability for a non-biological parent to replicate similar benefits). Pro was absolutely responsible for providing evidence to back up his assertions of biological necessity or even staggering relevance, as my role in the debate was to specifically argue against that notion." No, I was NOT arguing that biological ties were necessary at all (as I have pointed out). Con was essentially arguing that any male, such as a lesbian parent's friend or relative, could act as a role model and provide a male relationship on the same level as a father (not necessarily a biological one; the paternal instinct is learned rather than inherited). Let me quote her so she can't slip out of this one: "I've always had a plethora of male role models. I never felt that I was missing anything by not having that dad for me." Kids with gay parents aren't missing out on these things." "There are innumerable people raised by gay parents who turn out perfectly well adjusted, and note that they didn't miss out on any father/ mother figures in their life (implying that they had both male and female role models, which doesn't make any sense considering gay couples are the same-sex. Con was arguing that any male who helped with the kids could be a role model as well as a father)." Here's another exchange. Me: "Fathers are more dedicated to their children much more than anybody else"" Her: "Con never mentioned this before, let alone proved it. We have no reason to accept it as a legitimate fact." Me: "You take this out of context. I was responding to your argument that any arbitrary male role model could take the place of a father in a two-mother family. Same for two-father families." "MouthWash literally contradicts himself so blatantly that it's hard to tell if this is a troll debate or not. He said that he was arguing against the notion that a non-biological father (male friend) could somehow replace a father. I pointed out that I was arguing that biological ties were not necessary as Pro seems to indicate, and that they COULD replace a father. This is not a strawman in any way whatsoever. We are literally talking about the exact same thing. I was saying that biological ties were not important. Pro is saying that they are. There is absolutely not a single aspect of this contention that involves a strawman of any kind." No, I was arguing against your assertion in R2 that a a child raised by lesbians could have the same benefits of a father from limited interaction with other males. I never argued that biological ties were necessary, and you are embarrassing yourself by continuing to strawman me. Number 7. "Re: But as anyone can see, I provided examples of mental and emotional development from mothers and fathers which she then proceeded to strawman with her DNA argument." "I'm so glad MouthWash keeps arguing against himself; it makes my job that much easier. He said that he argued that child development patterns obtained from mothers and fathers was significant, and then said that I strawmanned him with my DNA argument. I've already provided the direct quotes proving that no such strawman exists. In talking about a mother and father, Pro is in fact referencing biological ties." Already refuted this. "But let's say he wasn't. Let's say he's talking simply about the various benefits offered by men and women. In that case, he's already defeated his own argument! If biological ties aren't important and only the gender dynamics are, then my point about random men or random women replacing male/female dynamics is completely true." So you admit that you claimed that any random male could come and replace a father by simply interacting with the kids. An assertion which, as I have pointed out, is ridiculous. "Further, here again is the direct quote where MouthWash references NATURAL a.k.a. biological fathers, meaning he's completely lying in saying that biology was irrleveant to his contentions/sources: "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." - MW" The source I provided refutes this point. I must note it is amusing that you once again left it out in quoting me. Number 8. "The debate started in round 2. Your format was terrible and didn't coincide with my numbering for cohesiveness starting with your very first rebuttal. If I missed something, it was an honest mistake and not an intentionally dishonest tactic. Good luck proving that I didn't respond intentionally, when in fact I addressed your points later on as well as explained how my initial rebuttal was sufficient regardless." I don't need to "prove" your intention, it can be inferred by the fact it was so obvious. But that decision is ultimately up to the voters (here's a link to the debate): [http://debate.org...] You later responded only because I pointed out how ridiculous it was to claim you had "won" anything. And besides, it was never my argument so you should have had the sense to drop it rather than simply repeat yourself as you did. "I'm not playing dumb. Pro just admitted that he lied about what fallacies I've allegedly used against him, but then blames me for not following his unstructured accusations." I didn't lie; the only difference between the strawman and red herring is whether it was used to misrepresent someone's argument specifically or if it mislead in general, so it makes sense that I got confused. "I didn't use a red herring, which is a vague accusation that only refers to intentional misleading from the actual issue. I didn't mislead against anything. My proactive argument was that kids with gay parents being teased was irrlevant to this debate. MouthWash said this was a strawman and dropped it. I pointed out that it was merely something I wanted to point out as part of my constructive case - NOT a manipulation of his arugment (because it was my argument) - and now he's accusing me of a red herring. I really don't know how to even respond to this. Clearly it's not. Clearly it's yet another example of Pro not understanding that he is responsible for responding to my contentions even if they are irrelevant to his own, or not part of his constructive case." Yes, I do. I responded to it in the first round. What I claimed was dishonest about this in the first place was that you kept misleading people to believe that you had won a legitimate argument by repeating yourself. Let me ask you this: when you realized that nothing in my case remotely or even had to do with that, why didn't you let it go? Number 9. "Re: What I meant by "biological ties" was that homosexuality was entirely biological and hereditary." "This entire point is irrelevant to the debate as it highlights not a shred of dishonesty on my part. We're arguing over a dropped contention. This is a massive waste of time. He is saying that his initial argument was that homosexuality was entirely biological and hereditary." Lie. It was that homosexuality WASN'T biological or hereditary. Let me quote myself: "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 the 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...]" Obvious, blatant lies aren't helping your case one bit. "I pointed out that while it certainly had biological ties, it was not a mental disorder, but I never said that he accused it of being as such (thus, no strawman on my part). I mentioned that it wasn't a disorder before he ever even posted an argument; it was simply something to keep in mind as my argument was that being gay didn't inhibit people from good parenting despite being an inherent part of their identity." It's good that you can concede this, instead of like last round where you openly denied you ever claimed this and I pointed it right out. "For instance, wnope noted that schizophrenia was "natural" but could be harmful. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is not. As such, my point was that not being a mental disorder meant it couldn't be considered inherently harmful. There is nothing dishonest about this." No, it was responding to Con's ridiculous point claiming that homosexuality couldn't be harmful because it was natural and found in animals. Wnope showed how ridiculous that was. Let me quote you in case she denies this: "Homosexuality is found in 1500+ animal species. They did not make the conscious choice to have a same-sex attraction given their extremely limited cognitive abilities. Con"s own source admits that sexuality is a byproduct of biology. There is nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality." "Re: I dropped the depression argument because I was unable to find many sources. And when did I say biology was not a significant factor? You are simply redefining "biological" to suit your needs. Throughout the debate you were never able to pick one definition of the word and stick with it." "WhatisthisIcanteven... I don't remember ever defining "biological" in any other way other than the actual definition of biological (as in, biological relationships established through a DNA connection). Anyway, Pro acknowledges that he dropped the argument. It's a moot point. There was nothing dishonest about my argument, rebuttal or explanation." As I have proven from her quote, Con claimed that the fact that some animals were homosexual proved that it was "natural" (as if animals cannot develop social abnormalities) and that somehow proved it was harmless. Furthermore, Danielle has completely ignored my allegation that she strawmanned me. The strawman is as follows: Me: "I was trying to establish that homosexuality was unhealthy and a product of emotional and social abnormalities. Again, I must quote: "This is primarily to make the point that homosexuality is not "natural" in the sense that it is unavoidable or part of human instinct."Your argument was literally "homosexuality is not a disorder" so I'm not really seeing anything pointless about it." Her: "Homosexuality is found in 1500+ animal species. They did not make the conscious choice to have a same-sex attraction given their extremely limited cognitive abilities. Con"s own source admits that sexuality is a byproduct of biology. There is nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality, and Con never proved that there is (he rightfully dropped the point about suicide)." She was clearly strawmanning me by using the animals to demonstrate that homosexuality wasn't a conscious choice. I never said that it was and it was never part of my case. Number 10. "Whether or not the conclusions were the result of fallacious reasoning is up for the audience to decide. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about what I said. Every single thing I said was true. I explained why his sources were irrlevant (didn't back up his claims); I explained how some of his sources helped establish my case in the debate (eg. Pro's Exotic Becomes Erotic article); it's true that he cited the same source 3x; and it's true that he failed to provide the correct sources for his claims which inhibited my ability to respond. As you can see, there was not a shred of dishonesty in anything I said in explaining why the Sources point should have been in my favor. This contention should be dropped immediately." No, it shouldn't. It is true that I cited the same source 3x, and I explained precisely why I did that. It should never have been part of your argument as to why I should lose the Sources point. Number 11. "Once again, let's examine what Pro is whining about. He's complaining that I brought up his ad hominem attacks against me in my explanation as for why I should win Conduct points. As I explained in the last round, apparently MouthWash doesn't understand that Sources and Conduct are factors of the judging process, which are each assigned a point value. As such, I mentioned his ad hom attacks as an indication that his conduct was inferior to mine. This is completely relevant to the debate, so I would say it's "important" and I didn't bring it up except for in 1 sentence during the final round. I didn't treat it as some very influential aspect of the debate; I merely pointed out that I exhibited better conduct than Pro, and I did. There is nothing "absurd" about this. There is nothing "dishonest" about this." Yes, there is. An ad hominem is an argument made personally against an opponent [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. You're committed quite a few over the course of this debate, but making a GENERAL STATEMENT about the quality of your response is not anything remotely resembling an actual ad hominem, and you were incredibly dishonest for even implying that I should lose conduct for it. It would be like me claiming you should lose the S/G point because your fonts got messed up and made your round harder to read. It's beyond ridiculous and should conceded immediately. Number 12. "I repeat: It includes zero explanation of specific harms of same-sex parenting (as in why the sexuality of one's parents leads to certain outcomes). Instead, it only provides a number for comparison with no factual data to support the conclusions." It didn't need to. That wasn't the point of the study. It showed a direct correlation with inferior outcomes for children raised by gay parents, which contradicted your own studies. "It also doesn't give any background information on the actual study (in terms of the demographics and other pertinent information, including class, geography, etc... This is relevant because how a culture reacts to gay couples raising a child will inevitably impact the way the child perceives themselves and their parents). It was Pro's duty to highlight a specific point within our debate, and then source it - not simply post a link to a source and say "I urge you to read this." First, the Sarantakos study was in Australia and Regnerus's was in the US (he also pointed out many specific flaws in the APA study including non-random samples and stuff like that. I also posted a link to it at the bottom of the page where it explain how the study was done, but it seems that now the articles are no longer free for the public. Other users who actually read it can confirm they were once). But the point is, Con is completely lying when she says that that information was not given. Second, Con completely misquotes me when she claims I only said "I urge you to read this." I actually said: "I urge my opponent to take note of the Sarantakos (1996) study. It compares 58 children of heterosexual married parents, 58 children of heterosexual cohabiting couples, and 58 children living with homosexual couples that were all "matched according to socially significant criteria (e.g., age, number of children, education, occupation, and socio-economic status)." The combined sample size 174, which is the seventh-largest sample size in the research findings above. What's interesting is that all of the larger studies were all adult self-report studies, which means that the Sarantakos is the largest study that investigated the development of children." Indeed, I explained to her exactly which study she needed to see! "Right off the bat, I shouldn't have had to go looking at all of those external sources as they were presented, so they should have been disqualified from our debate anyhow." I just caught you lying AGAIN. What's your excuse now? Forgot how to read? "By his own admission, he messed up on posting his sources, and what I saw didn't seem to back up his case at all because of the error. I pointed that out, and it was not dishonest." Le. I never said that I messed up anywhere. Con can't misquote me because I never said it. I shouldn't have to deal with this incessant insanity from a competent debater. "At BEST you can say it was a mistake based on how he misused the Sources aspect of the debate. Of course, all Pro had to do was say "Actually my sources did explain XYZ sufficiently, and here's why/how..." I explained it in the debate itself: "I posted three links to my three graphs, which happened to be on the same page and could be confused with each other. I posted the along with the corresponding numbers for each graph (4, 5, 6) so that readers would know what I wanted to cite. What's really sad is why anyone would consider that grounds for a point loss. It seems YOU got confused, because you apparently didn't bother to scroll down and see the different studies." "Of course then it would be up to the audience to decide. I didn't do anything intentionally "dishonest." A misunderstanding (even if I had misunderstood) is not dishonest. An accident is not dishonest. To me, Pro's sources were far from clear or cohesive and I'm not the only person who felt that way. Considering he didn't source properly or according to debate rules and standards, it's not my fault if myself or the audience got confused." My sources were fine. What's so incredibly irritating about all of this is that I EXPLAINED THIS ALL IN MY PREVIOUS ROUND. All of it. I even had to requote myself multiple times. How is this NOT dishonesty? You've finished yourself.. ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to please scroll up to the last part of my previous round to see the exact same arguments being made and then notice Con completely ignoring all of them. It's truly incomprehensible to me. "I also still stand by the fact that he hasn't explained why his sources or studies are superior." I can't even fathom a response to this. I directly gave you a link with multiple studies done by the APA and I pointed out the Sarantakos study and explained why it was superior. I even gave you a ScienceDirect link with more details. Anyone who even read it knows this is ridiculous. Here it is, so that nobody just has to take my word for it: [http://www.debate.org...]. (I pointed out Sarantakos during the actual debate). Finishing up. Let me summarize the contents of this debate: Con directly lied about several things she said that exploited the resolution. Con justified her strawmen by saying that my arguments required biological ties with the parents, an allegation disproven from simply looking at my source. Con has not denied that she repeated unrelated arguments and instead has claimed that I needed to concede them directly, which of course is ridiculous. Common sense tells you that you don't repeat completely unecessary things claiming you won them. Con has barely touched arguments 8, 9, 10, and 11, and instead used rather large amounts of text in ranting and mocking them. Con utterly ignored every single one of my arguments for 12- ignored them- and simply made accustions that they were hard to understand, a claim which cannot be upheld under the most basic scrutiny. I also predict Con will protest the massive length of this round. Let me point out that easily 60-70% of this has been quoted material. Unlike my opponent, who cherry picks what she wants to quote and address, I have quoted almost every allegation made and responded to everything in detail. In my opinion, she can address this round without much difficulty, especially because she doesn't have to do any sort of research ot cite links as well. Furthermore, I have combined her long, reptitive rants in the comments and found that the characters used in them alone totals over 20,000 (only a few thousand less than her previous round). Length should not be an excuse here. I request that the voter give lengthy RFDs that address specific contentions brought up here. Any RFD that just says, "Well, I think so-and-so was better because of some broad reason" should be treated as a votebomb. Analyzing the previous debate. Looking back at the actual debate [http://debate.org...] it is time to examine where all of these dishonest tactics came into play. 1. If in fact, the semantics are to taken into consideration, we need to look at their impact. Notice how the posts devolved into long, drawn out slogs as I directly quoted and responded to each of her arguments. I directly quoted her each time and gave her full context so that she couldn't misunderstand my points. However she often misquoted me and saved herself room by not sufficiently responding. Indeed, she has not remotely contested my accusation of Gish Galloping. It isn't a stretch at all- more than half of each round was dedicated to individually quoting, addressing and debunking specific stawmen and semantics which I have addressed in this debate. How much time was spent on her ridiculous repetition of irrelevant points alone? I already passed the limit simply in addressing what I could, but Danielle said that I needed to "directly concede them." Imagine if all of these semantics and strawmen- the things that Con demands I failed to address properly- were gone. What would be left? 2. During the argument, there were real arguments made and exchanged. Things such as a. Potential depression in homosexuals. b. Fathers and mothers relate to children differently. c. Studies showing homosexual couples' kids are disadvantaged. Notice that, throughout the debate, every SINGLE attempt to argue one of these points resulted in strawmen or some other type of avoidance tactic. a. Con used the reasoning against her unplanned pregnancy argument to claim that this was invalid. Obviously that is false; I never used anecdotal evidence to establish this argument. It is a strawman. b. Con completely failed to address this and instead took one of my statements out of context to imply I needed to prove biological ties were essential to parenting. Thus, she reasoned, the fact that fathers and mother have different parenting traits meant nothing for same-sex couples. Indeed, she dismissed it entirely by simply pointing out that the source never said care had to come from biological parents. It is a strawman. c. Con completely ignored these even after I explained them throughly and ignored the source I gave that provided more details. Throughout this debate, she has falsely claimed I conceded I messed up on them (I didn't) and blatantly ignored EVERY explanation, even long, drawn out ones that explicitly detailed how they were made obvious to you from the beginning. These are smoke-and-mirror tactics. It seems that for every actual argument I made, at every turn, I was repeatedly strawmanned into stagnation and forced to explain in detail what these contentions were. I repeated myself endlessly and got nowhere. She turned the debate into a fiasco by refusing to argue properly against even the most basic assertions I made. Arguments: It seems that all I had to do here was provide convincing evidence that some of the arguments used were dishonest, but the entire debate was utterly overloaded with them. Blatant falsehoods and strawmen from Con assured me a win. Conduct: Con regularly ranted, insulted, and condenscended, in the debate and on the comments, and even accusing someone of being my multi-account for simply supporting me (the admin proved he wasn't). It seems she simply didn't care about conduct at all here. Sources: Irrelevant to this debate. S/G: Both me and Con's spelling and grammar have been adequate. I thank the readers for their attention. I also thank Danielle for this interesting opportunity to debate, in the hope that she has gained something from it.

negative: Same sex marriage. I will contend that the USA federal goverment should reconize gay marriages.My opponent will contend that the USA federal goverment shouldn't reconize gay marriages.Burden of proof will be upon Con, my opponent 51%. This is due to the nature of morals, actions are considered moral until proven otherwise. Just as a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.StructureRound one Acceptance and definitionsRound two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument yet.Round three rebuttals respond directly to opponent's round two.Round four defense respond directly to opponent's round three.Definitions, use common definitions unless otherwise agreed upon.Sex"2.a. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions: How do you determine the sex of a lobster?" [0]Gay "1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." [1]Marriage "1.a. A legal union between two persons that confers certain privileges and entails certain obligations of each person to the other, formerly restricted in the United States to a union between a woman and a man." [2]Thanks in advance for accepting the debate. Previous debate for reference. [3]Sources.0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...3. http://www.debate.org...

negative: Allowing same-sex marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals. This is the final round. I'll do my rebuttals and, if I have space, make my closing statement. 1. First off, I gave evidence showing it has changed. Pro's only response is bare assertion of the negative. Second, whether it has contradictions has naught to do with whether it has been changed. That Pro thinks the KJV is "still good", or that the changes are "of no witchcraft" shows a fundamental lack of understanding on his subject. It is rife with what can be charitably called translation. .. differences. [1] And, further, it actually does have quite a few contradictions. [2] 2. This debate is about whether Gay marriage shows religion is the best way to decide morals. It is not necessarily about "movable morals vs. set morals", that's shifting the goal post. Religious morals, as I've already established, are quite movable, and some secular moralities have remained quite unchanged. If Pro can't prove that religion has a better answer to the gay marriage question, then Pro has not supported his assertion. 3. Pro's response to 3 shows he does not know about the French Revolution; he conflates the "Cult of Reason" with the "Cult of the Divine Being". Robespierre's Cult was established expressly against what Robespierre didn't like about the "Cult of Reason", such as the rejection of divinity. [3] 4. Pro here repeats his points from earlier. Who decides the laws of physics? Are they put to a vote? How about the laws of logic? How about the rules of proper and safe food preparation? We can apply our reason to these things and, accepting axioms, reach conclusions. It's funny that Pro brings up a dictator of morality; Pro is arguing that he wants a dictatorship over morality; that dictator, to Pro, should be God. As to the Supreme Court: Supreme Court justices are not elected officials. They are appointed for life terms. They are approved by the Executive and Legislative branches, regardless of who's in power in either. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled against the "majority" on numerous occasions, basing their decisions on Constitutional Law, rather than the preferences of the majority. That's their job. Pro then makes a completely unsupported, nonsensical assertion about abortion that I will disregard for want of substance. 5. Pro's burden here is to establish his case. Calling the two frameworks equal does not establish his case. As to "great things done by religion", Pro gives no examples, so I cannot rebut, I can only dismiss the argument of religion's necessity for these "great things" for want of evidence. 6. I find this quite a bit of hypocrisy. .. A charge of hypocrisy from Pro? Perhaps he should reread what I wrote, instead of what he wanted me to write. The point I was making was simply that the text can be interpreted multiple ways, thus completely negating his argument that it was "set". This doesn't mean the interpretation I presented is necessarily right, it just means that Pro has given no reason that it's not equally valid, thus giving two completely different answers to the same question, and showing that Pro's claim that the morals are "set" to be untrue. I would have tried harder to refrain from snark, had Pro not levied a "hypocrite" charge. But now I think it's well warranted. Perhaps Pro should invest in a dictionary, along with some history books? Oh wait, yes we can. Next verse- And if mischief does follow, you shall take a life for a life. Baby dies, then the guy dies. As previously noted, THAT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION. You can't seem to defend that interpretation except by stamping your foot and asserting it. . .. It is ending the bad family line. That's kinda how Israel lasted for forty years. If you just punish those who did the crime, than the family will become corrupted. So abortion is okay in the case of criminals. Check. Therefore, there are circumstances where abortion is okay. Gotcha. It's worth noting that the Bible doesn't condemn the children of criminals as a general rule for crimes. But it does condemn the unborn. Which would rather imply that even the writers of the bible saw the difference. Oh, and when it says that she did not cry, do you really think they mean literally. It means that it did not burden her heart for what she did. I assume he's referencing my point about giving the death penalty to rape victims. Well, that's just absurd. First "for what she did"? Get raped? Since Pro obviously hasn't read his bible, let's expand that Deuteronomy verse I mentioned earlier: "If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. " Pro did not support his case on this interpretation except by assertion. I would hope posting the text is sufficient to put the lie to his claim. 7. You just changed everything you said. .. No. I was using your own phrase. You're the one who said "we", I simply repeated using the framework you set up. You said that "If you give society the ability to decide what is right and what is wrong, how can you tell someone something is wrong any more? If we allow gay marriage, what comes after that? Animal marriage to people? Are we going to say no to that? " I said that, since those are completely different, "we" wouldn't. The rationality used to justify one is not valid when used for another. You attempted a slippery slope argument based on your own unsupported equivalence between secular morality and nihilism. And I am very aware of hitler's propaganda with religion. Once again, this is someone using religion, not it itself. The bible goes against it, and since someone did it doesn't make it right. Where, precisely, does the bible "go against it"? Pro has given us no grounds to think that. There is genocide aplenty in the good book. But Pro's case is that religion is the best way to decide morals. Clearly here, religion as they had it was NOT the best way to decide morals. 8. I will read it more when you do. The people who was treated as slaves were war criminals. Nothing more or less. No, they weren't. They were purchased from foreigners. It says it, explicitly. 9. This is a nonsense, irrelevant point. 10. Pro's final point is another nonsensical one, where he claims the Nazis weren't religious, then claims that "school shootings in the past year was done by atheists". He gives no link whatsoever to prove this; I know of no evidence for this. He then says that "by [my] logic, religion and science are both bad". It is Pro's Burden to Prove his case. It is not my job to prove anything except that Pro has not supported the motion that: "Allowing same-sex marriage shows that religion is the best way to decide morals. " It seems I'm out of space. Thank you to my opponent for this debate. To the voters: I urge a vote for Con, as Pro has clearly not established his case. I believe, in fact, that he's not exactly sure what his case is. Is it for "religion", "Christianity", "Pro's Christianity", or "Inflexible morality"? I hope Pro refines his thinking and learns his history, and comes back with a coherent case which he can support. As to the motion on the floor, as written, I shall close by quoting Steven Weinberg: "With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. " [1] -- . http://www.contenderministries.org... [2] -- . http://www.evilbible.com... [3] -- . http://en.wikipedia.org...

negative: Gay marriage What your stating that if homosexuals were to adopt it would mean welcoming a random baby into their home. But the child would still be welcomed into a random home, as they had already been put up for adoption in the first place. Having a children doesn't matter if you're gay or straight. You can still have a child no matter what, even heterosexuals can't have kids forcing them to adopt or have a someone else have a baby for them. They won't have a biological union with their kids, but should it matter because they would love and nature the child the same.

negative: Morality is determined by the individual I am so sorry, things have gotten so busy in my life I have not had time to prepare an argument this round. Im going to have to leave this debate with the arguments posted so far.again I'm very sorry, I intend to make sure this does not happen again in the future.

negative: Homosexuality provides a benefit to modern society. Opening Argument Lets begin by looking at some of the repercussions of the homosexual lifestyle on the physiological wellbeing of society. As attested and validated by decades of medical research, all sorts of sexually transmitted diseases and other forms of malignant cancers and psychiatric disorders increase dramatically in societies where homosexuality is allowed to thrive. The AIDS pandemic is a classic example of a disease that originated with homosexuals and continues to thrive among men who have sex with other men. Its prevalence remains disproportionately much higher in homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. In the United States for example, medical data has identified homosexual activity among males as by far, the largest single source of HIV infection in the general population. In a dramatic admission in early 2009, homosexual activist Matt Foreman, executive director of the United States National Gay and Lesbian Task Force shocked fellow homosexuals by declaring, "HIV is a gay disease." While addressing the National Conference on Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender Equality in Detroit, Michigan, Foremen stunned the assembly by stating: "With 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi-sexual, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that." In study after study, family breakdown is linked to an increase in violent crime, youth crime, teen pregnancy, welfare dependency and child poverty. Marriage has already been weakened in our society by promiscuous heterosexual activity. The out-of-wedlock childbirth rate is at a historically high level, while the divorce rate remains unacceptably high. "Legalization of gay marriage will further undermine an institution that is essential to the well-being of children and our society. Do we need to confuse future generations of Americans even more about the role and importance of an institution that is so critical to the stability of our country?" (Taken from a USA Today opinion article) "The weakening of the institution of marriage has already had too high a social cost. Radically redefining marriage will simply serve to intensify the assault on marriage and the American family." (Boston.com) In its relentless drive to overthrow the moral code that has guided Western civilization since Constantine, the homosexual lobby has moved from triumph to triumph in a few years. And what would constitute total victory for "gay values" over traditional values? If the tenets of the 'gay-rights' movement are true, the Torah and New Testament are wrong, Christianity has been wrong since the time of St. Paul, Aquinas and Augustine were wrong, and the moral edifice by which men in the West have lived for 2,000 years was built on bigotry, prejudice and lies. The issue is simply this. The family is one man married to one woman, period. And to say, as Presidential candidates are saying, one is saying I'm for the Federal Marriage Amendment, we say great. Another says I'm against same-sex marriage, but I'm against a federal marriage amendment, that's like saying 150 years ago, 'I'm opposed to slavery, but if my neighbor wants to own one, that's all right.' You're either going to take your stand to support the family, the 6,000-year historic family, one man married to one woman, or you're not going to take it, and I think the American people, will be greatly impressed by how political candidates move on that issue. (From the July 13 broadcast of The Tavis Smiley Show) Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson predicted on his radio program that allowing same-sex marriage in the United States would lead to "group marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," or "marriage between a man and his donkey." Dobson called this vision of the future "more or less a prophecy," though, he stressed, not a "divine prophecy, but a prediction." He said that his specific examples, as well as "anything allegedly linked to civil rights," will be "doable, and the legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. Now I'm not saying that incest or beastiality will become legal although they can make an argument for them. If they are not hurting anyone and the relationship is consensual should we allow polygamy? This is a very slippery slope that homosexuality can open a pandora box of abhorrent behavior. A study on childhood and adolescent molestation also found rates of homosexual sexual abuse reported by homosexual adults to be almost 7 times higher for homosexual men, and 22 times higher for homosexual women, compared to their heterosexual counterparts. This strongly suggests that minors can be sexualised towards homosexuality upon exposure to homosexual stimulus or homosexual abuse. (Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) Statistics like this affirmatively calls for the law to protect our minors from homosexual stimulus or abuse. This strongly supports the cause for the law to continue to draw a distinction between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex. Finally, the hard truth is, homosexuality cannot lay claim to its biological purpose, i.e. procreation, the way heterosexuality can. In this, heterosexuality has a legitimacy which homosexuality cannot lay claim to, and the law is obliged to distinguish this fundamental difference. If we produce no children, our society will die. There won't be enough people to support the infrastructure, medical needs, economic development, etc. That is a fact. So, common sense would tell us that homosexuality is a danger to society since it cannot produce children to further the society. Homosexuality is a behavior that is based, as many claim, on an orientation. What about other sexual orientations such as pedophilia, voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc.? The arguments for and against these other "orientations" are many and we won't go into them here. But, who is to say that those who fall into these sexual categories won't use the homosexual agenda's orientation argument as a basis to further their own causes? If you think this is a ridiculous idea, then you are not aware of the fact that pedophiles are doing just that. So, is homosexuality dangerous to society? The facts show that it is. We have to ask, why then would it be promoted so heavily when it is so harmful? The only answer I can come up with is that the politically correct don't care about the facts. Instead, they want their agenda promoted. They want their sexual freedom without responsibility. They, like so many tyrants in history, want to force their minority opinion on the majority to satisfy their own appetites. Sources: (1) Academia.edu (2) Umich.edu (3) USA Today (4 ) Boston.com (5) media matters.org (6) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

negative: Toilet Paper Orientation I will further clarify the definition of 'superior' by claiming that 'quicker' should be determined as an expected value of average time spent extracting paper from the roll across the total of all your interactions with the roll for its full lifetime. I look forward to your arguments!

negative: Free Will Exists I don't believe we are determined, I believe we have free will. I believe free will is at the core of what we are as humans. For example: if you love someone do want them to love you back because they have no choice to love you back because there will has already been determined or would you want them to love you back of there own free will ? If we are determined I ask you were you free to start this debate?

negative: Businesses should have the right to refuse service to people because of sexual orientation (USA) Although I agree that gays have rights--like everyone else--I do not agree with giving them the right to take away religious freedom just because people disagree with them. Businesses want the freedom to deny service for them. Taking away this law that gives religious freedom is like forcing them to agree, accept, and embrace their lifestyles and their values.

negative: Gay Marriage Thanks again to GCL. I will now present my arguments.FRAMEWORKThe topic reads "Gay Marriage is immoral." This is not a debate about gay sex; rather, it is a debate about gay marriage.That being said, sexual acts are integral to marriage, and so some discussion of gay sex is appropriate. However, we must recall that this is about the institution of marriage itself, not about what occurs within the marriage.Definitions:Marriage - "a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws." [1]Choice - "the act of choosing: picking/deciding between possibilities." [2]Sexual Orientation - "to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a community of others who share those attractions. Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum." [3]Morality - "conformity to ideals of right human conduct." [2] I assert that fairness is a good criterion for morality. Clarification: I know I'm listed as Pro; however, I will be arguing gay marriage is NOT immoral.ARGUMENTSContention One: Orientation is not a ChoiceA. Homosexuality is found in animalsNumerous animal species display homosexual orientations [4]. One famous example of this is the union of two female Swans. [5] Officials originally believed them to be a heterosexual couple, naming them Romeo and Juliet, only to--after investigation--discover that the couple was lesbian. This shows, at the very least, that homosexual orientations can be evidenced in nature. I would further posit, that since animals lack the rationality required to make higher-order decisions, that they did not choose to be lesbian, but were born that way. Christian existentialist Soren Kierkegaard once asserted that choice is about the ability to self-direct. Nonhumans lack choice. A cow, for instance, is a purely natural being; its behavior is always determined by worldly facts. The composition of a cow, the environment of a cow, and the natural laws governing Mother Earth determine what the cow does at all stages of its life. The cow, in essence, lacks the free will to act contrary to what any of the biological/natural factors dictate. For example, if a cow is hungry, it will eat; it cannot consciously choose not to eat even though it is hungry. It cannot fight against its natural urges."The Swans cannot choose to be straight or gay. Rather, they are simply submitting to their natural, homosexual urges.B. Behavioral AnalysisLearned behavior can be untaught. [6] Something that is innate cannot be untaught. For example, no psychologist could teach me to turn my blues eye brown. In this same way, homosexuality cannot be untaught. The APA, America's premier psychological association, has found that homosexuality cannot be "cured" and cannot be undone via therapy. [7] Other psychological experts concur. [8, 9] Even groups that have tried to unteach homosexuality have acknowledged their failures. [10] Therefore, people don't choose orientation.C. ConclusionSexual Orientation is not a choice. "Sexual orientation is not simply a personal characteristic but defines a group of people in which one is likely to discover satisfying and romantically fulfilling relationships as essential components of personal identity." [9]Contention Two: NondiscriminationA. It is wrong to discriminate based on things people have no control overPeople are responsible for their choices--not for things they cannot influence or control. Insofar as people cannot control whether or not they are gay, they are not responsible for their orientation. To say that they should be treated differently because of some factor beyond their control is to unfairly discriminate.Just as African Americans should not be persecuted for their skins color, women should not be persecuted for their gender, and people should not be persecuted based on their place of birth, gay people should not be persecuted for being gay. B. Civil Unions are insufficient"The institution of civil marriage confers a social status and important legal benefits, rights, and privileges. ... Same-sex couples are denied equal access to civil marriage. ... Same-sex couples who enter into a civil union are denied equal access to all the benefits, rights, and privileges provided by federal law to married couples ... The benefits, rights, and privileges associated with domestic partnerships are not universally available, are not equal to those associated with marriage, and are rarely portable." [11] We can also look to the Supreme Court's striking down of DOMA as unduly discriminatory and unequal to see that the highest Court in the U.S. conquers that there should be a more equal footing here. [11, 12] C. The Libertarian ParadigmIt is also important to point out here that gay marriage poses no active harm to any one else. Gay individuals getting married does not endanger you or your neighbors, nor does it serve any government benefit to deny gay couples marriage rights. It seems like an inappropriate use of government coercion, therefore, to prevent these loving couples from exercising their autonomy and getting married.D. ConclusionThe concept of Civil Unions is akin to the idea of Separate but Equal. Yet, Separate but Equal is inherently unequal. Gay couples are relegated to second-class unions for something they cannot control. This is inherently unfair.Contention Three: Preemption regarding Homosexual sexA. Set-up"We can and often do evaluate sexual activity morally: we inquire whether a sexual act—either a particular occurrence of a sexual act (the act we are doing or want to do right now) or a type of sexual act (say, all instances of homosexual fellatio)--is morally good or morally bad." [13] Some might claim, like the Catholic Church for instance, that having a homosexual orientation is not immoral, but having homosexual sex is. It is the contrast between the State of Homosexuality and Acts of Homosexuality. B. What makes Sex Wrong: The ContractWhat makes sex wrong--particularly sex within a marriage? Marriage is a contract that implies exclusivity between partners and caring for/honoring one's partner. These themes are echoed and enshrined in a variety of common marriage vows. [14] Therefore, within marriage, it is wrong to commit adultery (violates exclusivity) or to rape or abuse one's spouse (violates honoring/cherishing). Gay couples can be faithful and are fully able to consent. It seems then that the marriage contract itself would not prohibit gay sex.C: What makes Sex Wrong: The TelosSome claim that the purpose of something (its telos) matters when making right/wrong and good/bad judgments. For example, a calculator that solves math problems is a good calculator. Some claim that sex's purpose is to procreate; therefore, good sex is sex that results/could result in procreation. There are several logical problems with the teleological approach:1. Purpose is Nebulous 1A. Purpose cannot always be determined 1B. Objects often have multiple purposes so it is a fruitless task to attempt to synthesize an object's/institution's purpose into one thing as Con attempts to do 2. Purpose =/= should. For example, let's suppose that a gun's purpose is to murder. Simply because a gun's purpose is to murder does not mean that is how it should be used.3. Purpose is not exclusive. Simply because a gun's purpose is to murder does not mean it cannot morally be used for other things (hunting, deterrence, self-defense, sport, etc.)Therefore, the teleological approach is a logical fallacy; a non-sequitur if you will.SOURCES1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...3 - http://www.apa.org...4 - http://en.wikipedia.org...5 - http://www.mombian.com...6 - http://www.mentalhelp.net...7 - http://www.sgn.org...8 - http://www.mens-wellbeing.com...9 - http://communities.washingtontimes.com...10 - http://www.speroforum.com...11 - http://en.wikipedia.org... 12 - http://www.reuters.com... 13 -http://www.iep.utm.edu...14 - http://www.ehow.com...Thanks! Over to GCL...

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

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

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