The Instigator
republican92
Pro (for)
Losing
76 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
144 Points

Being gay is a choice, God did not "make" them that way

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/15/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 11,209 times Debate No: 493
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (61)
Votes (60)

 

republican92

Pro

I am sick and tired of people saying that it isnt there fault they are gay and that god made them gay, god would not create something that breaks his own laws, purposefully. He created his laws for a reason and wants everyone to be in heavon and if you are gay then you will not be in heavon so why would god create someone just so they can burn in hell?
Tatarize

Con

Your position is wrong in three critical ways.

1) Homosexuality isn't a choice. In fact, fMRI scans seem to indicate a very directly that there is no choice involved. There are actually brain differences which result in the attraction to one gender or another and those difference can be in either sex. Just as I never choose to be straight, I'm certain other people didn't choose to be gay. There are probably a few genes which may increase the chances of being born homosexual just as there are genes to increase the chances of being left-handed, but nothing to imply that it's a chosen behavior.

2) There is no God. It's part of the topic and relevant to note, but to say that God did something requires a considerable amount of evidence and I am certain you do not have any evidence, much less the considerable amount required to make such a claim.

3) Although, it is rather tangentially to the topic at hand there is an underlying impression that if homosexuality is a choice that it is somehow evil or wrong or something. Whereas even if it were a choice, it would still be an acceptable choice.

Some genes tend to control one thing directly, other genes tend to work in a number of subtle ways in conjunction with other genes and piecing them together is going to take a long time. However, we can be sure that brain scans are accurate and that there is no conscious triggering of attraction cues. It takes about half a second before people can make a conscious choice, however faster than that a number of attraction cues and neural activity triggers. These triggers to an attractive male stimuli are the same for heterosexual women and homosexual man and all occur prior to conscious reaction.

Furthermore, there are many examples of homosexual activity in nature, from monogamous male penguins to purely bisexual bonobos. A couple years back we even found a single gene trigger in fruit flies which makes them gay. Honestly, gene one way it would mate with a female fruit fly, the other way and it goes after male fruit flies.

Firstly, there is no fault in being gay, there is just being gay. Fault implies there's something wrong with it. Secondly, we can tell through the biological tools we have today that homosexuality is biologically based, with perhaps some genetic components, but is, in fact, inborn and probably takes place during brain development. The youngest son a woman has, has an 5% chance rather than the typical 3% of being born homosexual, in a statistically significant study published a year ago.

I fully understand and respect your need to toss around God this and God that in order to find justification for your bias and bigotry. However, the underlying facts simply aren't there. Homosexuality is an inborn neural quality of many species and your mythological characters don't change the facts behind the issue. Moreover, to say that homosexuality is a choice because God wouldn't create homosexuals homosexual, because that would be against God's law. This actually makes every claim needed to provide a good argument that your God doesn't exist. All one needs to do is look at the iron-clad evidence that homosexuality is not a choice and your bigoted view of a God who hates homosexuals and would never create them, to realize that there is a contradiction here. And when you're choosing which premise to knock down the one with the iron-clad backing is not a good choice. Perhaps there is a God, but it certainly wouldn't be your hate-filled gay-hating deity, because we live in a world where homosexuality is not a choice.

Finally you rest this argument on some rather silly logic that if God was creating homosexuals this would make no sense because why would God create people just to burn them in hell? Well, if this actually was your God's goal, why not have one shred of reasonable evidence for his existence? I mean, such a deity shouldn't allow for reasonable unbelief when any unbelief results in eternal punishment and torture. In fact, your God shouldn't make anybody who will not end up in heaven. If God knows what a person will do, and knows that they will end up in hell because of disbelief or homosexuality they shouldn't be made in the first place. You're condemning people on the grounds that you're God is twisted and makes little logical sense.

You are resting your opinions about homosexual on theological reasons. Even if you ignore the tortured theology which got you there, you can't dismiss the overwhelming evidence that you're simply wrong. There is very good evidence that homosexuality and heterosexuality is inborn, exists in nature, and establishes itself during brain development.
Debate Round No. 1
republican92

Pro

I understand that there are tests that show they just naturally prefer the same sex but it isnt the same with children. They have run tests on newborns and rant he test on 2 years olds, 4 year olds and so on. Newborn through 4 year olds don't have the same results as they do when they are 6 or older. The same children who, when they were younger, prefered the opposite sex yet when they got older they prefered the same sex. Meaning they weren't born that way. The way they were raised or the things they saw, persuaded them to prefer the same sex.

I'm not trying to be a gay-basher here, I believe they have the same rights, but I'm just tired of people saying it is their choice because it is. Even if they did prefer the same sex, they can still CHOOSE to be with the oposite sex and grow up being straight yet prefering the same sex. I honestly do feel a little atraction for the same sex but I'm gonna spend my whole life with the opposite sex because thats what God wants. And as for the existance of God, can you see wind? no, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Throughout history there have been actual recordings that science can't explain. This debate isn't even about whether or not God exists and I'd love to keep going on about that, but there isn't enough space for me to continue on that subject.
Tatarize

Con

There are tests which show that homosexuality is natural. Several, in fact, any test which shows gender attraction pretty well shows that it's not a conscious choice and that homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. You may however be surprised to learn that children at the age of 2, 4, and even 6 aren't sexually attracted to people. Toddlers can spot a pretty face, but there has been no such gender attraction test for that age as you suggest.

Secondly, even if there were a such a result, it wouldn't prove that being gay is a choice. Children manage to get much taller in that same time frame, clearly God did not "make" them that way and they chose to become taller!

I'm not being a gay-basher either and I do *not* believe they have the same rights. They are certainly entitled to the same rights which is why the Gay Marriage issue is so pathetically inane, but you would need to be deluded to believe they actually currently have the same rights.

Also, if you are suggestion that there is some set of circumstances which could allow me to choose to be gay, you're just wrong. I didn't choose to be straight, and I can't change who I am. It isn't something you choose. You really seem to be extremely confused here. You are saying that gay people can choose to be with the opposite sex and "grow up being straight yet prefering[sic] the same sex". I hate to break it to you, but preferring one gender is the core of gender preference. It doesn't matter how much sex a gay man has with a woman, if he is attracted to men and not to women he's still gay! In fact, the entire idea of that scenario you suggest goes to the heart of the matter. Gender attraction is not a choice! For that matter, neither is attraction in general, as sometimes there just isn't any chemistry.

-- "I honestly do feel a little atraction for the same sex but I'm gonna spend my whole life with the opposite sex because thats what God wants."

Um, are you at least attracted to the opposite sex? Because, you might just be letting theology ruin your life (and perhaps the women in your life), because it isn't a choice. If it were, Ted Haggard certainly wouldn't have chosen it, Larry Craig wouldn't have, and I'd think you wouldn't either.

Nobody chooses who they are attracted to. And certainly there isn't some choice involved. If there were we wouldn't see homosexual activities in animals.

Can I see the wind? Yes. I can see the wind. I can see tornadoes, hurricanes, leaves moving, trees swaying, smoke wafting. I can feel it on my skin. I can hear it rush passed my ears. I can feel the chill it brings. I can see the blue of the sky (a diffraction property of the atmosphere). I can go sailing. I can use wind turbines to power my house. Yes. The wind exists for every reason your God does not. Wind is trivial. In fact, your argument would make no sense if it were something like "can you see leprechauns?" -- Unlike wind, your God and leprechauns are exactly as detectable as each other (which is to say not detectable). The invisible and the non-existent look very much the same.

You say there are records of things science can't explain? Where? Or are we talking second or third hand sources here to which no records exist? Also, just because something isn't explained, doesn't mean it can't be explained. It certainly doesn't mean that, therefore, God did it. I only mention this because it's part of the topic. Certainly your argument fails if God doesn't exist.

Homosexuality isn't a choice. And outside of suggesting gender attraction sets in at around six, a point which is unproven and moot to the issue of choice, you've done nothing to prove your case.
Debate Round No. 2
republican92

Pro

First i want to say, yes i am attracted to the opposite sex, very strongly. I have a girl friend and she knows my feelings and agrees with me. You can think that the same gender is cute but still be straight. that's how i am. i think some guys are cute but i also wouldn't date them. Again you are wrong with the whole "test" thing. They have tests and if u research it, you'll find that they do have attraction to opposite genders. They have yet to find and record a newborn that prefers the same sex. There are many people who are living lives preferring one thing but going with another. People a lot of time prefer sweets but want to loose weight and stay with vegetables and fruits even if they don't like it. It's the way of life and the way god wants things. You may not believe God exists, but when you're burning in hell then you'll see what I mean. My whole point to this argument is that GOD did not make people gay. You completely turned it around trying to say that god does not exist. You obviously are a stubborn close minded fool because Gay's do have the same rights, that's like discriminating against another race. and it contradicts ur argument. That's like saying since blacks don't have a choice of being black then that means we should take away there right to marry only because they are black. I believe they have the same rights because i believe that the american constitution is right when it says all citizens are equal.
Tatarize

Con

Um. Speaking from experience, I don't. There's no chemistry at all with that entire gender. I think that's, in part, your problem. I assumed you could see the parallel between being straight and being gay. That I personally never chose to be attracted to the opposite gender and therefore by inference you should see how gay men can be attracted to men and feel no attraction at all for women. However, I was relying on the assumption that you understand what it is like to *not* be attracted to an entire gender of people and wrongly so.

Certainly if you're bisexual there's an obvious component of choice. You could choose to have relationships with men or choose to have relationships with women and thusly it would seem very much to be a choice. I assure you, the remainder of the population doesn't make this choice and moreover can't. And you should be careful to assume that everybody else is just like you. We aren't.

In your note about the test, it would have been good to post a link or a reference. I am aware of the tests performed at that age and they aren't gender attraction of sexual preference they are actual attraction. They put kids in a room and see if they look at the pretty women or pretty man for longer. The notation that it has nothing to do with sexual preference is absolutely correct, and it shouldn't! It's not a test of sexual preference. It is a test of which face kids look at. Of course there's no relationship between that test and actual gender attraction, because that test doesn't test for that. And, even if it did... saying such a change occurs wouldn't say that it's a chosen change any more than the growth height-wise in that time period is a choice.

Your analogy of people preferring sweets but eating vegetables and fruits is impossibly deluded. People prefer sweets because in an evolutionary adaptation humans have a TAS1 gene which allows for the taste of sweetness and prefer it because in a more natural state that gene made people eat fruit and fruit is good for people. It has nothing to do with gender attraction at all.

I don't mind that I've turned your argument around by noting that deference to mythological figures has nothing to do with gender attraction. And I certainly am not a "stubborn close-minded fool" for believing that gays do not currently have the same rights. Ask a homosexual. There are a number of patently unequal and abhorrent cases, adoption rights, marriage rights, armed forces rights, and clear and gross discrimination in a swath of different areas. I wasn't saying that such unequality is good, or that I'm in favor of it. I am clearly opposed to it, but you would need to be living under a rock to believe it doesn't exist. I believe you misapprehend my point on that matter. I certainly believe they *should* have the same rights, but they certainly are not *having* those rights respected.

Let me again emphasize the points I've made, which you've never refuted, although you've given considerable insight into why you think the way you do about the subject.

fMRI tests show that gender attraction occurs prior to conscious reaction and occurs differently in homosexual than in heterosexuals. Nature observations have uncovered a good amount of homosexuality among animals from deer, penguins, bonobos, dogs, lizards etc. Such animals are not making some kind of choice. I have noted that I did not choose to be straight. If gender attraction is a choice, I should have made this choice at some point. I did not. Men just don't do it for me. If one looks this is exactly the same argument made by homosexuals with genders reversed. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. Finally, the second half of the topic is that "God did not make them that way" which is to say, in order to prove your point, you should need to provide evidence for a creator God who created man in such a which would not include homosexuals. As such, the existence of homosexuals who did not choose to be gay undermines any chance at making that argument which you notably did not even attempt. To say that your God hates gays and make everybody including gays and therefore didn't make gays, is perhaps a good argument that you're simply confused and God doesn't hate gays (through non-existence or not being a jerk).

Thank you for your time and your opinions.
Debate Round No. 3
61 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
What person in their right mind would "choose" to be oppressed, fought against, in many cases denied by their own families, and generally put down by bigots like you, republican92.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Earth is not hell. Hell is a mythological place with a bunch of this and that. Earth is a planet in our solar system. It isn't that bad, in fact, it's all the good we will ever have. The existence of Earth is not evidence for the existence of Heaven. You simply can bootstrap a trivial claim into proof of an extremely absurd one. There is no good evidence for a historical Jesus, and even if there was jumping to Son of God from historical is a completely insane jump to make.

I commend you for realizing how infrequent the diamonds are in the dunghill. My point about peace/love Jesus is that it's entire myth. You can pick out a few choice lines from the Sermon on the Mount (from Q rather than original gospel material) to find a good line here and there. But, if you actually read the gospels you don't see any of this. You'll sooner find Jesus yelling at his critics, attacking people and demanding riddles and answers from people before healings. I didn't say bad, I said the stories don't reflect the myth.
Posted by ruth421963 9 years ago
ruth421963
Ahh I'm right out of the 1970's myself.
Thats when I learned many things in the Bible
along with with Jesus. I feel if you honestly
believe there is a HELL then there is a HEAVEN.
That simple. However I feel this is HELL{earth}.
See how my faith sways-----sucks. I do believe
in Jesus. The son of God? If there was a Jesus,
yes.
I do not follow 99% of what the Bible says.
I pick and choose as well. No need to lie.
Where in the gospels{read them} does it ever
say Christ was a bad man}?
Peace,
Ruth
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Ruth, you don't agree with the Bible (Good for you) and yet you buy into the mythos that Jesus was all about love and tolerance? When ever I hear this presentation, I always know people haven't actually read the gospels. It's a myth as popular as it is false even from a very textual account. I mean, cursing fig trees, being a complete jerk to his mother, getting angry going home making a whip-like bit with shards of metal and attacking people at their jobs, telling a guy whose dad just died to just forget about it, driving demons into pigs (destroying some poor gentiles' pig farm). The Jesus of the Gospel is more Fred Phelps than Gandhi. In fact, prior to the NT people just died if they weren't all godly and didn't get to stay with God... the NT introduced the concept of hell where you burn forever and ever for your vile sin of not believing complete hogwash.

This love and tolerance Jesus is completely extra-biblical, really I swear he was just made up in the 1970s.
Posted by ruth421963 9 years ago
ruth421963
I never said I agreed with thee good Book.
Also Jesus would walk with EVERYONE in order
to show his love. That is thee only belief
I was raised with and I'm still shaky on it.
The Bible has everything screwed up, I have
read enough to get confused over the years..
You have to have faith, mine is weak. It's
sad to me when others let what somebody or
"way of life" tell them what they feel. No
body can do that---just you.
Ruth
Posted by la_bella_vita 9 years ago
la_bella_vita
"I'm sorry I'm trying to help other people as well as myself. And yes, I do believe that trying to make everyone straight helps with salvation. Sorry if you don't feel that way."

"helping" people in your mind includes bashing peopls' lifestyle choices and insisting that they themselves are "wrong", what they feel and how they live is wrong?

thats funny, because when i help people, i do it with love and kindness and support. if i'm not wrong, thats also what your friend Jesus was all about. but i guess we're just different.

the point is when it comes to religion (which is SO personal), it's still only YOU you need to be working on. there are hundreds of different religions out there. just because you chose to believe in one thing specifically has nothing to do with what the rest of the world chooses to believe in. YOU work on living your religion. let other people stick to theirs. in the end, you're only going to "save" yourself, or not.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Oh, Homosexuality is clearly a sin. The Biblical punishment for homosexuality is clearly death. The Bible is extremely clear that homosexuality is a capital offense.

-- That said, the obviousness of that argument makes me glad to know that the Bible is a pile of hogwash (no offense to hogwash).
Posted by ruth421963 9 years ago
ruth421963
If you want to base it on the biblical definitions of what is a sin and what isn't, I'll agree with you. Though I think there are other things you may not agree with that have far more clear cut support in the bible in all the same places as those that condemn homosexuality (slavery, murdering disobedient children, men being around menstruating women, eating pork, etc)

Thanks, that said it all.
Peace,
Ruth
btw, I don't agree with the GOOD BOOK.
Posted by aremisasling 9 years ago
aremisasling
Master, we're not here to be saved. We're here to debate.

Here's a summary of your comments and mine:

(M) gay sex isn't natural because it can't create life
(A) then infertile people shouldn't have sex. procreation isn't the only reason for having sex

(M) homosexuality is the act, not the attraction
(A) Then the debate is silly. No one disagrees that gay sex is a choice

(M) homosexuality would lead to extinction
(A) this assumes that gay people want everyone else to be gay

(M) homosexuality is against most major deities
(A) not all deities. Not even all versions of christian theology

(M)homosexuality has no point
(A) Love isn't a good enough point?

(M) society will shun you
(A) they largely don't, it still wouldn't be wrong if they did

(M) you will go to hell
(A) Gay people don't believe it's a sin
(if you wanted to pull out a biblical support this would have been a good place to do it, though it still wouldn't demonstrate that it isn't natural)

(M) You shouldn't defend gays if you're straight
(A) That assumes I think straight is the one and only right way. You can't only defend people you agree with.

As for the blonde hair analogy, I never said Nazi, though I pretty much figured you'd assume that. Nevertheless, I didn't say I should hate non-blondes, merely that your argument suggests I shouldn't defend them if they are under attack. Though by unfortunate coincidence I could be used as a template for SS entry requirements, I don't by any means feel that naziism is right, nor would I ever claim that.

If you want to base it on the biblical definitions of what is a sin and what isn't, I'll agree with you. Though I think there are other things you may not agree with that have far more clear cut support in the bible in all the same places as those that condemn homosexuality (slavery, murdering disobedient children, men being around menstruating women, eating pork, etc)

Aremis
Posted by Masterworks 9 years ago
Masterworks
@bella: "stop telling other people how to live theirs"

Well, then, I'm sorry I'm trying to help other people as well as myself. And yes, I do believe that trying to make everyone straight helps with salvation. Sorry if you don't feel that way.

@aremis: Being Hitler (blonde superiority) has little to nothing to do with gays, though I do find blondes to be a bit more, if you will, "willy-nilly" and "out there".

@all: If no one's going to allow me to convince them of the right thing, then I'll leave.
And, as I'm sure you ALL know, we're told to love our enemies.
Seeing as that's the case, God bless you all, and good day.
60 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Themoderate 3 years ago
Themoderate
republican92TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: If con used better sources he'd get my vote. But I do not believe anyone is born gay.
Vote Placed by gt4o2007 3 years ago
gt4o2007
republican92TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is fucking retarted
Vote Placed by rowsdower 4 years ago
rowsdower
republican92TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ockcatdaddy 4 years ago
ockcatdaddy
republican92TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: being gay is not a choice for homosexuals it is in their gentic
Vote Placed by lovedebate 6 years ago
lovedebate
republican92TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: this debate obviously had to go to the con side...pros argument was not logical and was poorly put together...religion should not apply to arguments at all!!! congrats con.
Vote Placed by OedipusTex 6 years ago
OedipusTex
republican92TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
republican92TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by cbass28 7 years ago
cbass28
republican92TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by welldonesteak 7 years ago
welldonesteak
republican92TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
republican92TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70