Let's do this.
First round is for acceptance.
Konichiwa. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I hope one of us can come to a conclusion that one side is correct. Let this be an intellectually invigorating debate!
Case 1: The Fallacies of Pro-Gay Adoption Studies
Many of the studies that try to show that there is a benefit or show that there's no difference is skewed in many ways. I brief summation of one of my sources:
"However, a number of researchers have pointed out significant methodological problems with the research that would cast doubt on the conclusiveness of the “no difference” findings. Even some researchers supportive of same-sex parenting have acknowledged the significant methodological limitations in the research to date" (1)
Case 2: Mark's Study
Some people have come to defense of Mark's study. I am one of those people. For instance, Smith argues in his recent book, The Sacred Project of American Sociology, is a result of the content of sociology's "sacred project" (of mitigating oppression, inequality, etc.); Smith holds that the critical reaction, e.g. on methodological issues, displays a set of double standards insofar as work by other scholars could be (but is generally not) subjected to similar criticism (2)
Eighteen professors came to defned Mark's study. A quote from the article:
"We do not think that these new studies settle the nation's ongoing debate about gay parenting, same-sex marriage, and the welfare of children. In fact, research on same-sex parenting based on nationally representative samples is still in its infancy," reads the statement. "But we think that the Regnerus study, which is one of the first to rely on a large, random, and representative sample of children from parents who have experienced same-sex relationships, has helped to inform the ongoing scholarly and public conversation about same-sex families in America.
"As social scientists, our hope is that more such studies will be forthcoming shortly," the statement continues, "and that future journalistic coverage of such studies, and this contentious topic, will be more civil, thorough, and thoughtful than has been the coverage of the new study by Professor Mark Regnerus." (3)
One of Mark's critics is Mr. Cheng. He says that if we delete one or two of the subjects that seemed to be flawwed, the study would show no difference. However, look at all of the people they used for the study that had LGB parents. It would be illogical to conclude that deleting "one or two" of the subjects that data may be innaccurate would make the study show no difference. Mark had this to say concerning Cheng's claims.
“removing questionable cases does nothing to the original analytic conclusions, and the authors say so: ‘… these adjustments have minimal effect on the outcomes … these corrections actually increase the number of significant differences …’” “My mistakes were limited to the inclusion of a handful of oddball cases,” adding, “I was very clear about how I classified respondents.”
At max, Cheng found eight cases that were odd. However, that wouldn't be enough to de-rail the study. I'd like Pro to show me where Cheng found this data.
Case 3: Other Data That Suggests Gay Parenting Isn't Good
There is data that supports the claim that gay parenting is not good. Let's check these studies out.
""The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple," write the editors of the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network newsletter. The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders"—including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and anxiety disorders, major depression, and substance abuse.
Associated Press reported last June  that a "new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents ... are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves ... (and) grow up to be more open to homoerotic relations." [emphasis added] A major Australian newspaper reported February 4  on a British sociologist's review of 144 academic papers on homosexual parenting: "Children raised by gay couples will suffer serious problems in later life, a study into parenting has found. The biggest investigation into same-sex parenting to be published in Europe claims children brought up by gay couples are more likely to experiment with homosexual behavior and be confused about their sexuality." [emphasis added]"
Source Number "Go" (Japanese for 5) claims that intact married biologial families fare better than other families when it comes to raising kids.
W. Bradford Wilcox, University of Virginia William J. Doherty, University of Minnesota Helen Fisher, Rutgers University William A. Galston, University of Maryland Norval D. Glenn, University of Texas at Austin John Gottman, University of Washington (Emeritus) Robert Lerman, American University Annette Mahoney, Bowling Green State University Barbara Markey, Creighton University Howard J. Markman, University of Denver Steven Nock, University of Virginia David Popenoe, Rutgers University Gloria G. Rodriguez, AVANCE, Inc. Scott M. Stanley, University of Denver Linda J. Waite, University of Chicago Judith Wallerstein, University of California at Berkeley (Emerita)
What It Claims:
(1) more likely to participate in college,
(2) are physically and emotionally healthier,
(3) are less likely to be sexually or physically abused
(4) not as likely to use illicit drugs,
(5) less likely to be incarcerated for delinquent behaviour and (
(6) less likely to become a parent before they are ready (i.e. in their teenage years). (5)
Download first PDF file to read full study.
Now you may be thinking:
"But cooldudebro! That doesn't involve gay parenting! That involves marriage!"
If you thought that, you were wrong. You see, the whole study advocates intact biological families. Are gay couples intact biogical families if they adopted the child? Are they intact biological families if they adopted a child that is only blood-related to one? No. Thus, children adopted by gay parents could fall under either the "divorced" or "non-intact" family. So, that study applies to gay adoption.
Quote from the article:
"Parental divorce (or failure to marry) appears to increase children’s risk of school failure. Parental divorce or nonmarriage has a significant, long-term negative impact on children’s educational attainment. Children of divorced or unwed parents have lower grades and other measures of academic achievement, are more likely to be held back, and are more likely to drop out of high school. The effects of parental divorce or nonmarriage on children’s educational attainment remain significant even after controlling for race, family background, and genetic factors.82 Children whose parents divorce end up with significantly lower levels of education than do children in single-mother families created by the death of the father.83 Children whose parents remarry do no better, on average, than do children who live with single mothers.84 It is not yet clear if the effects of family structure vary by race. Some studies indicate that African American educational performance is affected more than white performance by father absence, whereas other studies come to the opposite conclusion.85 Parental divorce reduces the likelihood that children will graduate from college and achieve high-status jobs. Parental divorce appears to have long-term consequences on children’s socioeconomic attainment. While most children of divorce do not drop out of high school or become unemployed, as adults, children of divorced parents have lower occupational status and earnings and have increased rates of unemployment and economic hardship.86 They are less likely to attend and graduate from college and also less likely to attend and graduate from four-year and highly selective colleges, even after controlling for family background and academic and extracurricular achievements.87"
Case 4: Instability of Gay Relationships
Just in case Pro wants a secular source, I'll give it to him.
A study on short-term same-sex registered partnerships in Norway and Sweden found that divorce rates were 50-167% higher for same-sex couples than opposite-sex marriages, and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more subject to serious change, than unions of gay men
Homosexual relationships aren't stable.
Homosexual parenting harms children.
Heterosexual parenting is better for children.
I wish I could post more; but, I'm out of characters. Good luck! Arigatou!
2. Smith, Christian. The Sacred Project of American Sociology. Oxford University Press, 2014
7. http://tinyurl.com...; Andersson, Gunnar (February 2006). "The Demographics of Same-Sex 'Marriages' in Norway and Sweden
"Even some researchers supportive of same-sex parenting have acknowledged the significant methodological limitations in the research to date"
By this I am assuming you mean the research concerning whether or not gay people should be able to adopt children. If so, then this statement also damages your argument, since if the research into this field is limited, then those who are against same-sex adoption have also limited research.
I have read an article concerning Mr Cheng and Mr Powell (nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/biggest-anti-gay-marriage-study-was-debunked.html). In this article, it was stated the table you present shows all 236 adult children of gay parents Regnerus analysed. One of the most important thing on this table is, as Mr Cheng and Mr Powell noticed was that a full third of the adults spent four years or less living with a gay parent. Regnerus specifically used the term "raised". Mr Powell and Mr Cheng argue that while people can quibble over what it means to be "raised" by a parent, living with a parent for a year does not qualify and that four years is pushing it. Thus, a high proportion of the people Regnerus analysed weren't even in his category (the category being children who were raised by gay parents).
Concerning the National Gay and Lesbian Domestic Violence Network newsletter, you have not actually put a citation for the newsletter. Hence, this quote can be taken completely out of context. I could not find any citation for this study in your links at the end either.
Concerning the Journal of the AMA and psychiatric disorders; you did not put any citation here either, so this may also be taken out of context. However, I will still address the issues it talks about.
Members of the LGBTQ community do have higher suicide rates and depression rates.
However, it's not the same-sex attraction itself that is causing these disorders. It is the prejudice towards LGBTQ members. Prejudice against this community has been massive, and while dwindling, still is quite large today. This prejudice leads to bullying and spite. These things can lead to some people forbidding LGBTQ people to do certain things (such as adopting a child), which makes the LGBTQ person feel inferior to Cis people. This, along with the bullying, can cause depression and anxiety, which in turn can lead to substance abuse.
In short, it is not homosexuality itself that is causing these problems, but the homophobic community.
Regarding your source "Associated Press". This has a problem with it. It is nearly a decade and a half old. Statistics describing people cannot be considered completely valid if they are a decade out of date.
Moreover, you state that children raised by gay couples are probably (emphasis on that word please) more likely to explore homosexual activities themselves. So? What's wrong with trying out homosexual activities later in life? Nothing has ever proven that homosexual behaviour is wrong. Homosexual behaviour is harmless, if proper precautions are taken (such as contraception).
You say it advocates intact biological families, and as gay couples are not included in this,it's an argument against homosexual couples.
A straight couple have adopted a child. Is this an intact, biological family? No.
A gay couple have adopted a child. Is this an intact, biological family? No.
It applies to BOTH straight people AND gay people. This source is against adoption in general, not gay adoption.
Onto source six, wherein you go to Exodus Global Alliance.
Now, while these guys are quite obviously biased (they preach they can change gay people into straight people, something that has never been proven to work. Moreover, they claim to do it by the power of Jesus), I won't use that as an argument.
What I will use is that on average their sources are 24 years out of date. A LOT has change in over two decades. Their research - even if it wasn't biased and was properly conducted - is out of date by a long shot.
Lastly, in reference to your last point, where divorce rates in Norway and Sweden were much higher for lesbians than for gay men, the study was published 10 years ago. Almost exactly 10 years ago actually (which is rather neat). Due to the amount of change in the world regarding same-sex couples, it may have been perfectly valid for Sweden and Norway at the time, it is not the best representation for now; there have been vast changes for homosexual couples over the past 10 years.
"Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents. " adolescents with same-sex parents reported feeling more connected at school. Another study reported that children in gay and lesbian households are more likely to talk about emotionally difficult topics, and they are often more resilient, compassionate and tolerant." And as I mentioned before, the cause of many aspects of the homosexual drug use, depression, suicide, are all consequences of homophobia and are not the fault of the homosexual, but rather the fault of the bully " "Some differences [in parenting] may include adapting to different types of family forms, the impact of social stigma on the family, and dealing with extended family members who may not be supportive of same-sex parenting. One of the biggest challenges facing same-sex parented families is that they must live in a culture that supports heterosexist and homophobic attitudes and beliefs, which can affect these families in a variety of ways"
Thank you for responding! I know that school must be tough. I hope you did well on your test. Before I go on with refutations, I would like to add another case.
Case 5: People Can Choose To Be Gay
In basic Biology, we learn that there are certain conditions that determine certain characteristics. These may be physical, environmental, and spiritual. Let me give you an example. A physical condition causes you to release adrenaline in times of trouble. An environmental conditional could be growing up in a bad neighborhood causing you to be on guard constantly. A spiritual condition could be not giving your virginity up for your religion. Doctor Ben Carson has been labeled as infamous for saying being gay is a choice. However, he may not be so far off. (1) In the article, Carson asserts that many men go into prison heterosexual; but come out gay. How could this be? Their environmental conditions favored them to be gay; since there were no females in prison. A number of studies analyzed twins in different countries. A quote from the article:
"Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way. . . .
“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. [Neil] 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.’” (2)
You may ask yourself:
"How does this tie into gay adoption?"
If an individual wanted a child so badly, if said individuals took the necessary steps, they could become heterosexual. Therefore, they must either not want a child that badly or would rather have a gay lover. This is where a common phrase comes into place.
"You can't have your cake and eat it too."
In Response To Case 1:
This is the authors opinion. If anything, it hurts your case. It doesn't say that evidence against gay parenting suffers significant methodological limitations. It says that advocate evidence for gay adoptions suffers such limitations.
In Response To Case 2:
If anything, you did nothing but strengthen my case. If living with a LGBT family as a child for more than four years messes the children up that much, how much would the children be messed up if they were raised there for a lifetime. If anything, that does nothing but strengthen Mark's study.
In Response To Case 3:
I did provide a source. Both of the arguments I wrote should be in source number four in the previous argument.
That doesn't change the relevancy of said study. The entire human psych didn't morph into a totally new thing in a decade. Unless you can actually provide me with evidence that the study is flawed, don't try to challenge it. Then you go on to accept the study saying that kids are indeed more likely to try homosexual behavior in the future. You then ask; "What's wrong by that?" before acknowledging that gay people have higher depression and suicide rates. Another study confirms that homosexuals have an increased risk for mental disorders and aggression. (3)
Psychological Aggression is a common and serious problem in LGB relationships.
We reviewed psychological aggression among LGB individuals.
We identified several definitional and methodological concerns.
Several recommendations are offered to advance this area of research."
As you can see, homosexuality poses a problem for impressionabl, young children and teens. Why make them go through so much stress for a choice they made? In articles, people always say
However, if there was no problems with being gay, why do homosexuals feel as if there is? People don't need support for being heterosexual; white, black, boy, girl, ETC. So why is it that we just have to be so tolerant if said act is wrong. Pro asks later in the argument if depression statistics are because of stigma. He admits right there that my statistics aare correct. I assert that it isn't hte case. However, if we assume that it's because of stigma, that's one more reason wy kids becoming homosexual isn't a good thng.
It still applies to gay adoption. In fact, in advocates heterosexuality. It refers to:
"Mothers an fathers."
Refutations of Case 4:
Bro... This was my source for number six...
This was its citation:
(Charles Q. Lau, “The Stability of Same-Sex Cohabitation, Different-Sex Cohabitation, and Marriage,” Journal of Marriage and Family 74 [October 2012]: 973-988.)
The date doesn't change its reliability. It was analyzed over a long period of time; thus showing a trend.
Refutation to Pro's Argument:
Many of the studies that try to show that there is a benefit or show that there's no difference is skewed in many ways. I brief summation of one of my sources:
"However, a number of researchers have pointed out significant methodological problems with the research that would cast doubt on the conclusiveness of the “no difference” findings. Even some researchers supportive of same-sex parenting have acknowledged the significant methodological limitations in the research to date"
From Round 2.
Being homosexual is a choice that can be changed. If homosexuals want to get children, they should be in a heterosexual relationship for the wellbeing of the children.
There are many downsides to being a homosexual. Children of homosexuals are likely to become homosexual; thus experiencing these problems.
The marriages and relationships of homosexuals are unstable
Corpse Party OP: https://www.youtube.com...
Guilty Crown OP: https://www.youtube.com...
4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-risk behaviors among students in grades 9-12—Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, selected sites, United States, 2001-2009.MMWR. 2011.
Ben Carson has not provided one shed of conclusive proof for his claims. He has claimed many people go into prison straight and come out gay. Therefore, he says, homosexuality is a choice.
That is quite literally all he has done. No conclusive evidence has been raised to support his claim.
Moreover, you insinuate that heterosexuality is a choice, just like homosexuality. Those are both sexual attractions, as we all know. Sexual attraction is involuntary, that is something we all learn in Biology. There has been ZERO evidence to show that homosexuality is a choice.
Some very religious families has LGBTQ teens, these teens are then kicked out by their families for being "sinful". Why, I ask, would a teen choose to be homosexual despite the prejudice they would face?
Africa is a continent that is full of homophobia. Why would one choose to be gay when they know they face an immense amount of prejudice?
Using your reasoning, I could turn gay right now.
But I can't.
Because it's not a choice.
When did you choose between females and males? When (and how) did you decide what you'd be attracted to? Since you think sexual attraction is a choice, you should know.
Response to your response to case 1:
Why would evidence FOR gay adoptions suffer limitations whereas evidence AGAINST would not? Both parties are fishing their evidence from the similar pools. Therefore, if evidence FOR is limited, evidence AGAINST is also limited.
Moreover, the definition of "opinion":
a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Therefore, by your own words, your point isn't necessarily based on fact or knowledge, thus it wouldn't fit in a debate.
Response to your response to case 2:
You don't seem to understand the study.
Mark's FOCUS for the research was adults who had been RAISED by gay parents. However, the majority of the adults he focused on didn't even fit into that category, so the entire thing was cocked up.
It's like me doing research focusing on people between the ages of 20 and 25 doing drugs, but then over half of the people I am analysing are 30 to 35.
It renders his research invalid.
Response to your response to case 3:
Relating to this: http://science.jburroughs.org...
You did not give any link to the newsletter you claimed contained the information. You later said that this link was the source you got that information from.
There's just a problem...
All this link does is reiterate your point. It does not contain any of the actual statistics in the newsletter. All it does is make a claim.
"The entire human psych didn't morph into a totally new thing in a decade." You say that all these problems are caused by homosexuality and homosexuality alone. By saying this quote (the one I've put above), you are implying that someone's sexual attraction is the entirety of the human psych, which is just absurd.
"before acknowledging that gay people have higher depression and suicide rates."
You're just reiterating what you said before. Reiterating something doesn't make it true. These problems are not caused by homosexuality itself, but by the bullying and prejudice homosexuals are faced with. If you were bullied constantly for something you couldn't change, you would feel pretty terrible too.
Before you say anything about "sexual orientation is a choice!", please prove it. Ben Carson's claims do not count.
Moreover, the source you cite here requires that I pay $19 to view.
Did you pay nearly 20 dollars to view this?
The source cannot be viewed, therefore it has no part in this debate.
"However, if we assume that it's because of stigma, that's one more reason wy kids becoming homosexual isn't a good thng."
The issue lies not with homosexuality, but with bullying.
Yet you think the problem is homosexuality, not bullying.
Instead of not letting gay people adopt, why don't we just teach people NOT TO BULLY?
"It still applies to gay adoption. In fact, in advocates heterosexuality. It refers to:
"Mothers an fathers.""
Correction, it refers to "BIOLOGICAL mothers and fathers". Hence, the source applies to heterosexual adopters as well as homosexual ones. Therefore, it is against ADOPTION, not GAY ADOPTION specifically. Gay adoption is included in adoption, but so is straight adoption.
Why do I need to repeat this to you?
"19% to 29% of gay and lesbian students and 18% to 28% of bisexual students experienced dating violence in the prior year."
The authors of the study are against you. Here is what the authors of YOUR SOURCE said about their findings:
"Study authors say lack of acceptance from friends and family is the likely culprit. Discrimination, disapproval from families and social rejection at school can all contribute to these outcomes, said Laura Kann of the CDC's Division of Adolescent and School Health, and lead author of the report."
So, as I have previously mentioned, the problems homosexuals and bisexuals face is NOT a result of their sexuality itself, but rather the stigma against their sexuality.
This supports my point and goes against yours, which is weird, considering it is YOUR source.
"14% to 31% of gay and lesbian students and 17% to 32% of bisexual students had been forced to have sexual intercourse at some point in their lives.""
Since this is a point against homosexuality, you are essentially implying that it was the rape victims sexuality that led to them being raped.
If you could prove that, I would genuinely be surprised.
How does the victims sexuality lead to them being raped?
Response to response to case 4:
Taking a quote from the link:
""Whereas heterosexual life is largely grounded in marriage and childbearing, the lack of legal marriage for same-sex couples and greater difficulty having children means that there is not a logical end point for same-sex relationships (Strohm et al., 2009).""
This only applies if same-sex couples cannot get married (it clearly states that). The funny thing is, same-sex marriage is actually legal as of last year in America. Many other countries legalised it before then.
Oh my... I've got another quote. It's how the author of that study concluded the study:
"Lau concludes his study by methodically pointing out its deficiencies""reliance on self-report data, small samples, and lack of data on attitudes and values," which he says "point to directions for future research and the need for more data on same-sex couples." "
He admitted his own research was flawed. Therefore it's not the best source to use in a debate.
"The date doesn't change its reliability."
In this case, yes it does.
"It was analyzed over a long period of time; thus showing a trend."
A trend that may not be present today.
"However, a number of researchers have pointed out significant methodological problems with the research that would cast doubt on the conclusiveness of the "no difference" findings. Even some researchers supportive of same-sex parenting have acknowledged the significant methodological limitations in the research to date"
Following your reiteration, I will reiterate my response:
"Why would evidence FOR gay adoptions suffer limitations whereas evidence AGAINST would not? Both parties are fishing their evidence from the similar pools. Therefore, if evidence FOR is limited, evidence AGAINST is also limited."
PRO-GAY ADOPTION ARGUMENT
According to this link, wherein a study in 2011 is mentioned (the study being released by Oxford University Press), research suggests that homosexuals were more likely to adopt older children, children with special needs, and minority children than heterosexuals.
Also, reports say that an estimated 2 million gay people are interested in adoption, a huge amount of potential, loving parents who could take the kids out of "the instability of the foster system".
Moreover, there was evidence to suggest that gays are more accepting of open adoptions than heterosexuals (an open adoption being where the child retains some contact with their birth parents).
There are many other reasons in that link apart from the ones I have just recited.
In conclusion, my opponents sources were either unable to be viewed, debunked, flawed in methods of research or contained no actual science, just claims, or out of date. One of his sources even supported me, not him, as the source pointed out that the fault was in the stigma against homosexuals, not homosexuals themselves. A writer of one of his sources even admitted that the research was limited, thus the study being inconclusive, thus not supporting my opponent one iota. Another source wasn't even specifically against gay adoption; it was against adoption in general (since this INCLUDED heterosexual adopters, it is not a very good source against homosexuality).
Moreover, he tries to refute my evidence by reiterating an already debunked claim; that all research for gays is limited, whereas research against gays is not. This was refuted via my explanation that they both collected their information in similar ways.
That concludes this round, and for round 4, I would like there to be no new sources brought to the table (by this I mean completely new points; new sources which are used to debunk already made points are allowed).
Because he posted 2, I feel obliged.
I'm sorry I couldn't reply sooner. I really wanted to. I've been beyond busy. THis may be a little rushed.
Rebuttal to His Response to Case 5:
Ben Carson is a Neurosurgeon who has run for president. If anyone knows something about the American people, it'd be Ben Carson. He gets the anchor of the show to admit that people going into prison straight can come out gay. When Ben asks why, he can't respond.
There are many factors as I said in my last argument. Environmental and spiritual factors that determine a trait can be changed. Given the right methods, sexual orientation can be changed.
Well, people find it taboo. People like the taboo.
I'll just let Jane Ward and more homosexuals including a college professor tell you they chose to be gay.
"But the fact that the “born this way” hypothesis has resulted in greater political returns for gay and lesbian people doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is true. Maybe, as gay people, we want to get together and pretendit is true because it is politically strategic….But still, it wouldn't’t make the idea true.
People like to cite “the overwhelming scientific evidence” that sexual orientation is biological in nature. But show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design.
People like to use the failure of “gay conversion” therapies as evidence that homosexuality is innate. First of all, these conversions do not always fail….the point is that we can and do change. For instance, in high school and early in college, my sexual desires were deeply bound up with sexism. I wanted to be a hot girl, and I wanted powerful men to desire me. I was as authentically heterosexual as any woman I knew. But later, several years into my exploration of feminist politics, what I once found desirable (heterosexuality and sexism) became utterly unappealing. I became critical of homophobia and sexism in ways that allowed these forces far less power to determine the shape of my desires. If this had not happened, no doubt I’d be married to a man….But instead, I was drawn to queerness for various political and emotional reasons, and from my vantage point today, I believe it to be one of the best desires I ever cultivated. [emphasis added]" (1)
"A neurosurgeon is a physician who specializes in the diagnosis and surgical treatment of disorders of the central and peripheral nervous system including congenital anomalies, trauma, tumors, vascular disorders, infections of the brain or spine, stroke, or degenerative diseases of the spine."
Ben Carson is this, if we are to trust you in saying what he is.
However, these sorts of things are NOT AT ALL related to homosexuality. Nor is the fact that he ran for president.
This is a massive appeal to authority. You're stating that because of his position, he's correct, no matter what, which is ludicrous. Despite his job and the fact that he ran for president, he has not produced any evidence to support him.
"There are many factors as I said in my last argument. Environmental and spiritual factors that determine a trait can be changed. Given the right methods, sexual orientation can be changed. "
It's a shame there has been no proof to support your claim.
"Well, people find it taboo. People like the taboo. "
You. Are. Kidding. Me.
Gays get death threats for their sexuality, some are killed for their sexuality, teenagers are practically robbed of their future for their sexuality.
But you're telling me that they like the fact that it has prejudice against it?
This is like saying black people like to be discriminated against.
"First of all, these conversions do not always fail".the point is that we can and do change."
No proof to back this up. It is a mere claim, nothing more. There has been no evidence to show that it changes.
"But later, several years into my exploration of feminist politics, what I once found desirable (heterosexuality and sexism) became utterly unappealing. I became critical of homophobia and sexism in ways that allowed these forces far less power to determine the shape of my desires. If this had not happened, no doubt I"d be married to a man".But instead, I was drawn to queerness for various political and emotional reasons, and from my vantage point today, I believe it to be one of the best desires I ever cultivated. [emphasis added]""
So a lady discovered that she was bisexual, though more strongly towards women than towards men.
This is no proof.
"As you can see, homosexuals themselves admit it is a choice. "
This presupposes this Jane lady is a representative for all homosexuals, which is untrue.
You have seen ONE person claim that homosexuality is a choice, and because of that, you generalise it by implying ALL homosexuals say this.
"Others, like Jane, change over time."
Change over time? That contradicts your point. Your point was that homosexuality was a choice. This quote contradicts that. Your sources have a habit of contradicting you don't they?
"I'd like to fire a question back at you. If they knew their parents are against it, why did they openly say they were homosexual? "
Because they wanted to be themselves?
Because they thought that maybe, just maybe, that their parents would accept them?
Because they might not have known their parents were homophobic?
I'd like to provide further science to disprove your claim that homosexuality is a choice:
We learn (in our basic biology and sex ed classes) that erections are involuntary.
"As an autonomic nervous system response, an erection may result from a variety of stimuli, including sexual stimulation and sexual arousal, and is therefore not entirely under conscious control." (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
What YOU suggest is that we can control what turns us on and what doesn't. This has no proof behind it whatsoever.
Refutation to rebuttal to response to case 1:
"They're saying that the way that advocates for "no difference" conducts their research is flawed."
You admit it is just a claim.
It's just that there is no evidence to support this claim of yours, therefore it is irrelevant.
Refutation to rebuttal to response to case 2:
"Again, if children of homosexual parents get this messed up in just this short amount of time, how messed up will they be if raised for longer periods of time. If anything, it lays as proof that just a short time of homosexual parenting is harmful."
I suggest that you take your time to understand your sources before you post them, because as shown here, you have no clue what yours is about.
Mark was STUDYING adults who had BEEN RAISED by gay parents. However, MOST of his subjects WERE NOT RAISED by gay parents.
Do you seriously see the flaw in his research? Most of the people he was studying didn't even fit into his category. His entire research was cocked up.
The fact that you do not understand this proves how you do not even look hard at your own sources.
Refutation to rebuttal to response to case 3:
"I did prove it. I used another source besides Ben Carson which you didn't even mention in your argument."
You have proved that you don't read your sources. Nothing else.
" I have shown through my sources that the increased suicide and depression rate is due to being homosexual. No matter how you spin it, homosexuality is a choice and it leads to an increased suicide and depression rate."
You frustrate me so much.
The AUTHOR OF YOUR OWN SOURCE contradicts you. The AUTHOR OF YOUR OWN SOURCE said it was NOT due to the homosexuality, but due to the STIGMA AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.
You're making the mistake of "correlation = causation" and you're only digging yourself a bigger hole by not properly reading your own sources.
"homosexuals choose to come out and say they're homosexual."
Choosing to say they're homosexual is NOT the same as choosing to become homosexual. That is self-evident.
"IF bullying is the cause"
So you're denying that bullying causes psychological problems?
You. Have. Got. To. Be. Joking.
"However, my sources laid out the fact that homosexuality is the causation of those statistics."
Wrong. The author of YOUR OWN SOURCE said it was the STIGMA AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.
"you ignore it."
The irony is too much; you ignore so much of your own sources.
"May I ask how dating violence is attributed to people not accepting them?"
Why don't you ask the author of YOUR OWN SOURCE?
"Either way you spin it, it strenghtens my case."
No it does not. All it proves is that bullying causes this.
Refutation to rebuttal to response to case 4:
"You say the trend may not be present today; yet provide zero data to prove otherwise. "
You made the claim that the trend IS PRESENT, YOU provide the proof. I am being logical here, as one should be in a debate. You are trying to illogically shift the burden of proof. Don't dig yourself any more holes.
"This shows that homosexuals (included bisexuals) are more likely to cheat. Note that the article didn't say that homosexuals cheat less than bisexuals while it said that heterosexuals cheat less. Thus, the article lets us know that bisexuals and homosexuals cheat more than heterosexuals. (2) "
Brilliant, you use a source that is 20 YEARS out of date. Again.
I'm seeing a trend with you.
"As I showed earlier, homosexuals adopting will do more harm than good. "
What? That's it?
Because YOU made cases, you think it's okay to ignore mine?
Lovely, it's finally over.
Consider this a summary of this argument:
Con uses a logical fallacy to support his point: the appeal to authority fallacy. He states that because of Carson's position, he is right by default, despite not giving any evidence to support him.
Moreover, he gives claims about sexuality being changed but yet again gives no evidence.
He then suggests that homosexuals become homosexuals BECAUSE OF THE PREJUDICE. A ludicrous claim.
Then he says that all my research is flawed because... well... he doesn't actually give much of a reason. He just claims it.
Next, he says how one woman discovered she was attracted to women and thus homosexuality is a choice. He then generalises all homosexuals by saying all homosexuals support her. He pretty much lies to me right here.
Furthermore, his claims defy basic sex ed and basic biology.
He then fails to understand his own argument, ignoring the fact that the data collection method was extremely flawed.
His OWN SOURCE conflicts with his own point, which suggests he didn't even read it properly. He also makes a correlation = causation argument, something which is completely fallacious.
Next (I thought this deserved its own line), he suggests that bullying DOES NOT cause psychological problems.
He then lies by saying his source clearly supports him, whereas it actually supports me.
He also tries to shift the burden of proof onto me by claiming something is true and then essentially challenging me to prove it is not.
He then uses a source which is 20 years out of date.
Then (this deserves its own line too), he completely ignores my own argument.
I hope you had a nice time reading our debate, sorry I got frustrated with Con nearing the end (showed pretty clearly didn't it?), this topic does that to me.
Have a nice day and vote for Pro.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|