Question:

My English class began writing persuasive speeches on contemporary issues. We were allowed to pick our own topics. I choose homosexuality - and how it is not a choice - because of my passion for the topic. So I began my research and came across Scientific Facts Regarding Homosexuality
& Marriage Equality
I found it to be rather interesting. So I would like to ask: What is your opinion on this new information? Do you disagree? Why?

But I would also like to apply this information to your article. It state that this once homosexual activist, Michael Glatze, "left homosexuality" 6 years ago. However, at least according to science, homosexuality is an...affliction, for lack of a better word, caused during pregnancy. So might I suggest that this man did not "leave" homosexuality but hid it from himself by resisting his urges? Or that he truly is attracted to this woman who he has married and was or still is bisexual or perhaps pansexual turned straight by his desire to be accepted by those around him. Because we homosexuals and heterosexuals tend to hold such distaste for one another we completely forget about the possibility of people being attracted to both sexes. Mr. Glatze himself allegedly said he "felt more comfortable living heterosexually." Which only fortifies my point as there are bisexuals who prefer one gender over the other. I personally have had several bisexual friends, both majorly "straight" and majorly "gay", my age and older. And the fact that he does not promote the possibility of this change, this metamorphosis, which could only be for the better, is questionable. It just seems someone so happy would want to share this immeasurable pleasure with the rest of his fellow human beings so that we could achieve a greater semblance of equality. But he doesn't.

That is all and once again, as last time, I only ask these questions in curiosity. So take your time but please do answer. I've come to enjoy these kinds of debates.


Answer:

The article starts out with a false statement: "ALL (not some, all) of America's established experts on family, mental health and child health agree that America would benefit if same-sex couples could have civil marriage to protect their families." All we need is one counter example to disprove the statement. The Family Research Council is an established organization of experts on the family. It argues against homosexual marriages and quotes numerous experts to back up its points. Whether you agree with the Family Research Council or not, the fact remains that the writer of the article you cited started out with a recklessly false statement.

The second statement is equally false: "The National Library of Medicine scientific research publications all confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individual's ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work, or to contribute to society." Again the use of the word "all" makes the statement false if one counter example is found. In the article: Male homosexuality: nature or culture? we learn, "Debate continues on whether or not male homosexuality (MH) is a result of biological or cultural factors. ... The JSM's readers should recognize that there are several biological factors in MH. However, these findings do not seem to be able to explain all cases of homosexuality. Some others may be due to particular environmental factors. The issue is complicated and multifactorial, suggesting that further research should be undertaken to produce the final answer to the question raised in this Controversy section." While they want to claim a biological cause, they are unable to prove the point.

In looking through the citations, evidence of bias is strong. Just about every article is from the Williams Institute. This is clear indication of poor scholarship.

If you are going to make credible arguments, you need to use credible sources.

Your denial of facts does your argument no good. People have and do change. To try and reinterpret the facts by a different reason from what the people have said doesn't prove your point. It only says you think people are dishonest, but the problem is that is only your opinion; it holds no value in an argument. Actually, science has not proven that homosexuality is an affliction caused during pregnancy. The last I've checked this line of reasoning has been disproved. See: Do these studies on homosexuality have any meaning?

To see a balanced view of the studies regarding homosexuality, take a look at Homosexuality -- The Causes. You will notice that this author cites studies (not opinion pieces) so you can read them for yourself. He analyzes and qualifies the findings, noting the strengths and weaknesses of each study. You might not agree with his conclusions, but you understand by the time you get to the end why he came to his conclusion.

The quantity of evidence of people leaving homosexuality is quite large, but at the moment it is popular to ignore or attempt to discredit any evidence that is contrary to your position.

For me, the point was made 2,000 years ago: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:9-11). People can and do change from all sorts of sins, including homosexuality.