yer i love this site im on this more then myspace these days big supporter of the homosexual community thanks for lettin me learn more andrew.
love u!

3rd negative
Good morning, adjudicator, ladies and gentlemen.

Homosexuality is a social responsibility not a genetic responsibility

We have just heard the case from the affirmative team and they have stated a convincing argument toward nature being the cause of homosexuality, however I will now endeavour to point out the main flaws in the affirmatives’ case.

First of all the 3rd speaker spoke about the study done by Bailey and Pillard on twins. Bailey and Pillard found that for every homosexual identical twin the chance that the other twin would be homosexual was only 50%, therefore there was still a 50% chance that the other twin would not be homosexual. However we do know that only 38% of the time the other identical twin is homosexual. These results do highlight the fact that homosexuality is not entirely caused by genetics. Consider this, If genetics did cause homosexuality then if one identical twin was homosexual then the other twin would have a 100% chance of being homosexual as they share the same genetic makeup rather than just a fifty -fifty chance. From bailey and Pillard’s study as cited in Scientific American by W. Byne the rate of homosexuality for non twin biological brothers and adopted brothers was the same that being 11%. These findings imply that genetics do not necessarily play a part in determining whether or not a person is homosexual but rather the environment contributes significantly to homosexuality.

The affirmative speaker then went on to talk about homosexuality in animals. This is a flawed argument as I will now explain. As Dr Charles Socarides from the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality said the term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, because in animals the investigator can only establish motor behaviour and as soon as he interprets the animal’s motivation he is applying human psychodynamics which is a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.
We are also unable to compare homosexuality in animals and humans because below the level of chimpanzees, sexual arousal patterns are completely automatic and reflexive. So how is it then possible to do studies of homosexuality in animals and then compare to that in humans? What occurs within other species is no way an indication of what happens in human beings therefore making it hard to say that nature causes homosexuality.

Now to sum up my own teams case. Our 1st speaker rhon spoke about family influences and the mother archetype that establishes homosexuality. It’s the family’s primary goal to nurture and protects one’s child. It is the child’s upbringing that impacts and moulds them therefore influencing ones homosexuality. Homosexuality has the tendency to cluster in families. It is likely if one brother is gay then the other brother may in fact consider this possibility too.

She then went on to argue the mother archetype idea put forward by Jung and later backed up by Bell and Miller. A man with a powerful mother only had two choices in life either commit to homosexuality or Don Jaunism. Committing to Don Jaunism meant that the bond that the male shared with his mother would be broken therefore homosexuality was the only other option to keep this bond intact. Homosexuality was caused when the boy’s sexual libido remains fixated on his mother, thus the only way to seek sexual fulfilment is by turning to men.

Our 2nd speaker Andrew, then went on to argue that mother son complex put forward by Freud as well as continuing on the idea of family and environment issues. He argued the idea put forward by Freud that homosexual men are fixated with their mothers. They want to stay true to their mothers and in order to do this they must have sexual relations with men. Boys were also believed to have an extreme fixation with the penis so they can’t imagine having sex with someone who doesn’t have a penis which results in them being homosexual.

Andrew, then went on to talk about how there are three notions that make up homosexuality; inferiority complex, child-in –the – adult and self pity habit which all stem from flaws in the nurturing process. It is thought that deep disturbances in the child- parent relationship and the child turning away from the opposite sex parent to the same sex parent in order to resolve conflict is the most common causation of homosexuality

Homosexuality hopefully proven by the negative team is a direct result of the nurturing process as it is caused by family influences, and the environment in which one grows up in.

However before I finish I would like you all to considered this question yourselves’ homosexuality nature or nurture? Before rushing in and making a rash decisions all I ask is for you to consider all the evidence first. After this I’m sure just like the negative team you will arrive at nurture being the cause of homosexuality. As homosexuality is a social responsibility not a genetic responsibility.

Thankyou.