The Instigator
mongeese
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
146 Points

Being gay is not a choice.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 12/9/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,196 times Debate No: 10398
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (37)
Votes (28)

 

mongeese

Con

Gay - homosexual - having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex, situationally or as an enduring disposition
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Choice - the mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I contend that being gay is a choice on behalf of the person whose sexuality is being questioned.

There are at least two choices that we can guarantee for people who feel as if they have no choice in the matter:

1. Be gay.

2. Suicide.
A dead person has no attractions to anyone, and is therefore not gay.

Additional choices:

3. Live in seclusion.
A person living in total seclusion can no longer be gay, as there are no longer any people to have an attraction towards.

4. Be sedated.
While sedated, a person has no consciousness, and cannot have any relationship with anyone.

With these three choices to be considered, I leave the floor to my opponent. Thank you for accepting.
Danielle

Pro

Thanks for the challenge.

Clarifications:

I'll reject my opponent's definition of homosexuality in favor of the medical definition, which is: sexuality directed toward someone of the same sex [1].The medical definition of sexuality is: pertaining to, characterized by, involving, or endowed with sex or the sex organs and their functions [2]. With those proper clarifications, we can see how one can posses sexuality without ever being sexually active. In other words, sexuality (and homosexuality) is largely in part determined by nature in addition to nurture. Because our sex organs, sex functions and sexual behaviors and attractions can all be attributed to neurological going-ons of the brain, then clearly one can be born predisposed to homosexuality.

Science:

A plethora of scientists believe that there are genetic contributions to one's sexuality, and even the Evangelical scientists who believe that it might not necessarily be a gay gene that's responsible acknowledge that there are still biological factors which contribute to one's sexual identity. Here are just some of many examples supporting my case [3], [4], [5]. Of couse further debate and clarification can be discussed upon request. However, I'm assuming that my opponent is reasonable enough to understand that sex and sexuality are obviously linked to the brain.

Arguments:

So onto the debate. Con's argument is that one can choose to be gay (option 1) or choose from a handful of other options to avoid their sexuality. I will present the following options and dismantle every single so-called choice that my opponent presents:

2. Suicide

A) As I have pointed out, there is substantial evidence that genetics and other biological determinants heavily influence sexual orientation. In that case, suicide is not a viable option for an infant either inside or outside of the womb. These individuals cannot make the conscious decision to commit suicide, nor would they actually be able to do so. In that case, suicide is NOT a feasible choice for one that young, and therefore one would have to live as a homosexual, thereby affirming the resolution.

B) If one chooses to end their life i.e. cease to "be," then one is not choosing not to be gay but rather choosing death. Even if one chooses death over being gay, the reality is that they were once gay, and being gay at that point in time still amounts to being gay without it being a choice. So, while of course one can always make the decision to end their lives, the fact remains that before they choose to do so, they were gay - not by choice. Again, the resolution is affirmed.

3. Living in Seclusion

This is the most asinine argument I've ever heard. Even if one lived in seclusion, they would still identify as a homosexual. One can be a virgin or not sexually active and still maintain a sexual identity. This point does absolutely nothing to negate the resolution.

4. Sedation

While it's true that one cannot be in a relationship while sedated (or have any sexual feelings or relations), the fact remains that one is still a homosexual genetically, biologically, or - as with the suicide example - they were gay prior to the sedation. Moreover, one can still engage in sexual intercourse while sedated [6]. That brings me to my contentions...

Pro's Contentions:

1. Rape

Con's presented definition of homosexuality was having the romantic or sexual attraction OR BEHAVIOR among members of the same sex. Whether we use that definition or my own, the fact remains that one can engage in gay sex without their consent. In instances of rape, one is involved in homosexual activity and they DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE. Therefore, I have once again negated the resolution. If you believe that it is not sex itself but rather the willingness or rather predisposition to enjoying gay sex which distinguishes one from being gay verses just experiencing gay acts, then you must accept the reality that biological factors play a role in one's sexual identity. Who you're attracted to is dependent upon chemicals and other biological occurrences. So, you'll see that even if one chooses sedation or suicide, the fact remains that while alive - the individual did not choose to be gay. And furthermore, after death, there is no one to choose an alternative to being gay so the non-living entity is irrelevant.

2. Being

To clarify further on my opponent's proposal, one might be able to choose not to BE gay as in be gay in the future (i.e. by committing suicide). However, one cannot avoid BEING gay as in being gay that very moment (as in prior to suicide or sedation). This is a point I feel that I've made abundantly clear throughout the debate, but figured I'd reiterate for clarification.

3. Biology

Christians and other groups teach that you can overcome being gay via prayer or other rituals. I'm hoping my opponent doesn't choose to go that futile route (too easy to prove wrong). But just in case, here is further proof that sex pertains to the brain [7].

Conclusion:

One's sexuality is determined largely in part to biological factors. As such, if one is either genetically or somehow otherwise predisposed to being gay, then they are in fact born that way as in have developed into being that way during pregnancy. As such, said individual does not have the mental or physical capacity to willingly choose death or sedation. Therefore, they are being gay without the choice of being gay. Further, while one might choose death over being gay in the future (i.e. choose not to be gay), one cannot help or avoid being gay in the moment. So, at some point or another, one is gay without or prior to the choice. All of my opponent's contentions have been negated. Of course I reserve the right to extend any contentions for the Pro in the next round. For now, back to Con.

[1] http://www.medterms.com...
[2] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://www.newscientist.com...
[4] http://news.google.com...
[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[6] http://www.nytimes.com...
[7] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Con

Again, thanks for accepting.

Firstly, I shall reject my opponent's rejection of my own definition for this debate. My definition was introduced first, and by accepting this debate, my opponent should have also accepted the defitions, as detailed in this debate I had earlier [1]. There is no good reason as to why my opponent's definition would trump my own.

As for the science of it, while sexuality may be linked to the brain, the brain is merely one thing among many. Whether or not the brain is the only factor is yet to be seen, as choice has not been entirely ruled out.

Now, onto the points I made last round:

2-. Suicide

Infants have no homosexual characteristics at all. They do not ever have "the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex." Their brains aren't developed enough to do such things. Therefore, infants are completely irrelevant to this debate. They would not develop into homosexuals until much later. Additionally, the gayness of infants is still a choice, but in this case, it would be the choice of the parents. The parents make the conscious decision to raise the child.

However, young children have suicided [2], likely before developing sexual behavior or attraction, so given that they have the option of death before ever being homosexual, this point remains.

3-. Living in Seclusion

How can one maintain a sexual identity if one has nobody to establish such an identity with? My opponent's virgin analogy apparently assumes the virgin to actually live with other people, as opposed to the hypothetical secluded person. Why would a person in seclusion possibly fit the definition of "homosexual"?

4-. Sedation

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. Finally, having sexual intercourse while sedated is merely one rare event that my opponent cannot possibly use to affirm a conjecture. Counterexamples are only acceptable in negating a conjecture.

1+. Rape

As this is a rare situation, it cannot be used to affirm a general resolution, as outlined above. For the random addition about death, the non-living entity is not gay, and is still relevant, due to having made the permanent choice not to be gay.

2+. Being

These actions can be taken before sexuality develops, as I have outlined.

3+. Biology

Why does this contention even exist? It is just a counter-contention to a contention that was never introduced.

Conclusion:

Infants are not gay, but may become gay around puberty, so future gays are not present gays. Parents have the choice of not allowing their child to have any chance of being gay in the future. Death and sedation can be chosen before sexuality develops.

Counterexamples:

I would like to point out that as I am CON, I am the one who only needs one counter-example (such as abortion, killing the child before its neurology develops [3], or abandoning a child in the woods to grow up in seclusion with no sexuality whatsoever) to negate the resolution. My opponent's few examples that could potentially show the resolution to be true in certain instances are irrelevant, as PRO needs to show the resolution to be entirely true. For example, in this debate [3], CON pointed out counterexamples, so that should the net result be that the end result was the resoltuion being sometimes true and sometimes false, Arguments would go to CON.

With that said, I'll leave the floor to PRO.

1. http://www.Debate.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://www.debate.org...
Danielle

Pro

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...
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Con

My opponent claims that her own definition fits the debate more than the definition that I already established in Round 1, mostly by comparing the sources of the two definitions. She accuses of the debate being skewed in my direction by my own definition. However, the debate would be skewed in my opponent's favor if we choose her own definition. If my opponent did not like the definition that I initially chose, and felt that a debate using such a definition would be unfair, then she should have stated such in the Comments section. My opponent had the complete freedom to not accept this debate if she felt that the definition were unfair. However, if my opponent's definition is allowed to prevail, then I have no freedom whatsoever to back out of an unfair debate. As my debate with crackofdawn_jr already outlined, this freedom to back out is what already gives the Contender an equal ability to control the definition. However, if the Contender can accept a debate, then pick any definition whatsoever, no matter how biased it may be, then the Instigator is no longer debating the debate that he or she already prepared. That would be like writing and signing a contract, then passing it over to the other person, then watching as they rewrite the definitions for every single word so that you'll end up in massive debt to them and sign the contract. That hardly sounds fair. The only way for the signing of the contract to be completely fair for both parties is if after one person writes, defines, and signs the contract, the second person can either sign or try to negotiate the contract. After signing, it's too late, unless the original writer of the contract chooses allow it, which does not apply to this case in the slightest.

Now, if we were to go with my opponent's definition, that would be completely unfair. I actually agree with the PRO position given PRO's definition. I am PRO with my opponent's definition, but CON with my own definition. I wished to debate as CON under my own definition, and my opponent has no right to force me to take a completely different side just because she doesn't feel my source to be adequate. The reason I chose the source I did was because it had the definition that I wished to debate with. The alternative to my posting a definition would be renaming the resolution to "Having the romantic or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex is not a mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one of them for action." It would be the only way to debate what I want to debate, and it can't even fit in the topic box. Essentially, when one reads the resolution, and the Instigator has already defined words in the resolution, the resolution should be treated with the defined words substituted out by their respective definitions, so that the topic is short and succint, while still being comprehendible.

This is all outlined even more thoroughly in this debate of mine: http://www.debate.org...

My opponent's second statement is that people who are inclined to possess feelings of homosexuality are, by my definition, homosexual. However, one reading the definition can easily find this to be false. Having an attraction is different from being inclined to pontentially have attractions. That would be like calling everybody alcoholics because their brains are wired to be potential alcoholics, even if they've never tasted alcoholic beverages. Therefore, my opponent's accusation is wrong.

All of my opponent's arguments using her own definition are completely irrelevant to this debate, as I have already thoroughly outlined above.

2-. Suicide

My opponent's arguments completely rely on her own definition, and are therefore void.

My opponent ignored my sentence from Round 2, "Additionally, the gayness of infants is still a choice, but in this case, it would be the choice of the parents. The parents make the conscious decision to raise the child." As the parents make the choice to allow for the child to exist, the child's being gay is still a choice. This is a dropped argument, and therefore conceded.

3-. Seclusion

If one has never known anybody else in his or her entire life, then they would not even understand sexuality at all.

4-. Sedation

All references to genetics and biology are void, as detailed above.

The rape case, as I'll more clearly address below, is not nearly enough to affirm a resolution.

1+. Rape

My opponent misrepresents what I said. Rare examples are not enough to affirm a resolution. If one said, "Rectangles are rhombuses," the response would be, "That only applies in the case of squares." Squares being both rectangles and rhombuses is not enough to affirm "Rectangles are rhombuses." Similarly, just because some situations of being gay may be without choice, doesn't mean that the all-encompassing "Being gay is not a choice" is affirmed. Rare examples can be used as evidence, but only as evidence. Conclusions cannot draw only from rare examples, as outlined in the squares scenario. As for the rarity of rape, I never said it was extremely rare. I merely said that it was rare. 3% seems fairly rare to me.

2+. Being

This contention completely relies on CON's skewed, un-consented to definition. Ignore it.

Counter-Examples:

False. The fact is that counterexamples disprove conjectures. Given the conjecture of being gay not being a choice, and the counterexample of being gay sometimes being a choice, the conjecture is inherently false. Additionally, my situations are not rare at all. Almost anybody can make the choice of suicide.

Conclusion Analysis:

Most of my opponent's conclusion relies on the definition not pertaining to this debate. As for the random throw-in of sedated people still having feelings, one can simply be sedated to a state of complete unconsciousness [1], in which case, feelings don't exist.
My opponent argues that a person being gay at any moment negates the resolution. However, assuming that being gay for a few seconds is not a choice, after having one opportunity to suicide, a person has chosen to be gay rather than dead. This choice, however, lasts eternally [2], even after the suicide, in which case one has chosen death over being gay. If one measures the amount of time each occassion lasts, one realizes that there are more instances of gayness being a chose than not, which would actually negate the resolution.

Conclusion:
My opponent's definition cannot be accepted for any reason by the numerous reasons I have outlined above. Being gay is first a choice made by the parents (conceded), but later becomes a choice to eventually be taken by the homosexual himself. He can choose to suicide, and after perhaps a few minutes of lack of choice, a homosexual's homosexuality is a choice, as opposed to death. Therefore, at least for the most part, being gay is a choice. The resolution is negated in numerous ways. Vote CON.

1. http://www.asahq.org...
2. http://www.suicide.org...
Note that most of CON's sources are entirely irrelevant to this debate, concerning irrelevant genetics and biology not to be debated here.
Danielle

Pro

Clarifications:

Perfect. Con admits that he simply cannot win this debate if homosexuality is defined properly. In other words, Con must use a faulty definition in order to win this debate... because he can't support his case any other way. He says he'd agree with me if my proper definition is used, but that's only because I have proven him to be 100% wrong on this topic in general. You'll note that this debate only came into fruition because I disagreed with his position on the subject in another debate and challenged him on it; as such he chose a definition of homosexuality from Wikipedia (lol) that he thinks makes it impossible for Pro to win.

I maintain that the definitions should be discussed - especially on this topic - since no mention was made in R1 that the definition HAD to be accepted, and it's understood in every debate that people have different ways of defining things. For instance, in a debate about free will, you'll see that Pro presents one definition of free will and then Con presents another [1]. This clarification is most certainly allowed and encouraged so long as it's done in the first round, and the instigator makes no rule against it (which you'll notice that Con did not). The only way my definition should not be used is if Con argues that my definition is incorrect. However, because my definition is the correct medical definition, then it should be upheld. Again, I'll let the audience decide what source they think is more valid - the medical community, or Wikipedia.

Moving on, we'll discuss the word "homosexual" since that's what this debate is actually about - being gay. You'll note that Con never once defined gay or homosexual ~ just homosexuality. As such, my explanation of homosexual should stand. I have described it as being one that possesses the qualities of homosexuality. That includes gay genes, biological factors and all other sexual instincts, attractions or behavior towards another of the same sex or gender.

Rebuttal:

2. Suicide

Con says that my argument here completely rests on my definition; however, once again that is completely wrong. I have proven and even quoted doctor/scientists who explain that sexual identity is achieved in INFANCY which Con originally said was impossible before I proved him wrong. So, since I was right about that point and Con completely dropped that argument in the last round, then I am right in saying that an infant does not have the mental or physical capacity for suicide and my point stands.

Also, Con says I dropped his argument "As the parents make the choice to allow for the child to exist, the child's being gay is still a choice." I didn't drop it -- I just proved how it was impossible, so I thought Con would understand that I already negated this absolutely ridiculous position. The resolution implies that BEING gay is a choice, NOT *raising a gay child* is a choice. So, even the parents choose to raise a gay child, the child does not have a choice and therefore this point actually supports my position rather than Con's.

3. Seclusion

Con writes, "If one has never known anybody else in his or her entire life, then they would not even understand sexuality at all." I can't even begin to describe how non-sensical this argument is. First of all, if one lived in seclusion their entire life since birth, then it wouldn't be their choice but their parents (or some other entities) choice. Therefore this weak argument has already been negated. However, you'll notice that Con dropped every single one of my other points from the last round regarding this horrible contention.

In R2 I pointed out why this premise made no sense. Con absolutely 100% dropped my arguments about the genetic and biological factors that go into determining one's sexuality. Of course this was after he said that there was no link, and I proved him wrong just as I have with every other point that he's made. Nevertheless, let me reiterate how asinine this argument really is. Not to mention that it's completely untrue! Even if one had lived in complete seclusion from other people, there's no telling that they'd be completely secluded from sex. Moreover, Con never pointed out until the last round that the person would have had to be secluded since birth. As we all know, introducing new arguments in the final round is bad conduct and against debating paradigms. However, that's irrelevant because it's not even possible. For that to happen, it would have been at the hand of the infant's care taker and therefore not their choice. This point is void.

4. Sedation

Con completely ignores all arguments related to biology because he cannot argue them.

Arguments:

1. Rape

Here we have a most interesting argument. Con insists that "Rare examples are not enough to affirm a resolution" yet sees no problem with using rare examples to negate a resolution. For instance, expecting that one remain secluded from infancy --> forever is absurd. Similarly, committing suicide is just as ridiculous. And furthermore, a resolution without a doubt can be proven by using a rare example [2]. Nevertheless, you'll notice that Con never disputed my example of rape - he just pointed out that rape was rare. Just because something is rare doesn't mean that it can't be used as evidence.

For instance, if I say "Pitching a perfect game is possible" and point out that it's been done before -- in far less than 3% of games might I add -- then of course that evidence can be used to support the resolution despite how rare it is. Also, Con's statistic is also skewed; I pointed out in the last round that the stats regarding sexual abuse are more around the area of 15% of people per year. Nevertheless, I have won this point using Con's own very definition and tactics. If his definition of homosexuality includes those who engage in homosexual behavior, then surely those who are raped fall within the category of gay. This includes all of the men who are raped in prison, or boys who were subjected to sexual abuse at the hand of others or priests. These people have been 'gay' and it was not their choice. Moreover, this example most definitely applies because Con's own definition uses the word "situationally" which clearly an act of rape is.

2. Being

Once again, Con completely dropped the contentions here because he can't argue them.

Counter-Examples:

Extend my arguments.

Conclusion:

This entire debate is based on Con's inability to defend the position that one can choose their sexuality. Because he obviously cannot prove that one chooses to be gay -- and we all know what that statement really implies -- he has relied on (a) semantics and (b) a faulty definition. By his own admission, Con has completely neglected the TRUE definition of homosexuality in favor of one that suits his position. That is not an example of winning a debate ~ it is an example of manipulation. Listing suicide as an alternative to accepting one's sexual identity is clearly a semantics argument; it's a shame that Con can't win a debate the real way (via actual arguments with proper definitions).

I have explained why my definition should prevail in this debate. You'll also notice that I've proven how Con is wrong even using his own faulty definition. To re-cap, one is born gay (WITH A GAY GENE) -- they just haven't realized yet that they are gay. There is no "alcoholic gene" so Con's example fails. One might be genetically inclined towards addiction; however, can avoid it. You cannot avoid your sexuality. Again, even if one commits suicide, they were gay before committing suicide. The same logic applies to sedation or seclusion, though it's much easier to see how Con's seclusion argument is horrible; life-long seclusion would not be the individual's choice.

Resolution affirmed.

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
I can't be the only one who thinks everyone innately bisexual, and we just set up our own deeply rooted taboos. No?
Posted by HazelMystic 7 years ago
HazelMystic
Seclusion...mmmmm. I should build an anti-gay hut.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
LOL. You just don't let up. I've already proven you wrong in the debate, and the milk example is irrelevant to most of the arguments I've used.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
If I choose to drink milk, then I am also choosing to drink the water that is in the milk. Otherwise, I wouldn't be drinking milk.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
No, being gay is not the choice. The choice is being alive. Being gay is something that "comes with the territory." If you choose life, all you're choosing is NOT death. Anything that comes with "not death" is not your choice.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
But you made the choice of being gay over the choice of being dead.
Posted by mightymisfit 7 years ago
mightymisfit
yes, i woke up this morning and decided i would be gay...i decided to be an alien to those i loved, to be a second class person...to not be accepted by my religion....what a fun choice
Posted by Sylux 7 years ago
Sylux
Example:
Me: "Hmm... I think Snake is sexy..."
My friend: "O_o? But EVA is on the same screen image."
Me: "Yeah, but he's still sexy..."
Posted by Mangani 7 years ago
Mangani
Before/After: Pro
Conduct: Con. I gave conduct to Con because Pro did accept Con's definition in accepting the debate. Adding another definition would have been behaviorally acceptable, but she rejected the Con's definition. I also see from Con's definition a very simple way to refute the premise, and so another definition was not necessary. How about- attraction is involuntary, and therefore not a choice???

Spelling/Grammar: Tied
Arguments: Pro
Sources: Pro

Homosexuality is not a choice by either's definition. Attraction is a biologically programmed function of procreation. Anomalies in the human body, especially sexual chromosomes and genes which determine a person's sex, are generally responsible for pre-disposition to homosexuality, and homosexuality itself. It is the outward appearance of an individual that signals to others what "sex" one might be, but many DNA tests show that a person raised as a man, acting as a man, and outwardly heterosexual may actually be a woman, and vice versa. Homosexuality, then, becomes a matter of perception.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
Okay, you said:

"after having one opportunity to suicide, a person has chosen to be gay rather than dead"

Does that clearly look like your explanation? I think not. Anyway, it doesn't matter how long one was gay without a choice (i.e. a few seconds). The point is that WHENEVER you're gay, you're gay not by choice. Even if one chose not to commit suicide and stay living as a gay person, they're still gay and not by choice. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
28 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
mongeeseDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 6 years ago
tBoonePickens
mongeeseDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Mark40511 6 years ago
Mark40511
mongeeseDanielleTied
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 arenax3 7 years ago
arenax3
mongeeseDanielleTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
mongeeseDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Yurlene 7 years ago
Yurlene
mongeeseDanielleTied
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:06 
Vote Placed by PsyPhiGuy 7 years ago
PsyPhiGuy
mongeeseDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
mongeeseDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Thade 7 years ago
Thade
mongeeseDanielleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by tochter_aus_elysium 7 years ago
tochter_aus_elysium
mongeeseDanielleTied
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