The Instigator
CopperRoses
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Donjaundebater1212
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Homosexuality is not a choice.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Donjaundebater1212
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,382 times Debate No: 35122
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

CopperRoses

Pro

This is my first argument on debate.org and so I am arguing something close to my heart. I apologise for any mistakes I have made in creating this, and welcome any comments and arguments put forward.

Homosexuality is defined as: a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex.

For the sake of this argument, a choice in being homosexual is not about the choice to act on homosexual feelings but the choice of being someone who has the feelings towards members of the same sex in the first place.

My argument is: homosexuality is not something that can be decided by an individual. They may choose to act against such homosexual feelings by not having relations with a member of the same sex, but their homosexuality still remains.

I look forward to hearing a counter argument,

thank you

-CR
Donjaundebater1212

Con

Hello, this is also my first debate on debate.org, and I look forward to competing as I am in my second year of varsity policy debate it will be nice to debate theory rather than fact.

Where to begin.

I would like to begin my argument by rebutting my advisaries argument: "Homosexuality is not a choice."

A. Homosexuality is a state of mind:
-In order to decide if one is a homosexual, they must first develop feelings for another person of the same sex. Most will argue that people will "hide" their true feelings by having relations with people of the opposite sex in order to stay "acceptable" to the majority of society. However, this cannot always be the case. For example: There are many women who have dated men their whole life, settle down and get married to a particular man, and during the marriage are brutally treated and beaten. After this, they divorce and are forever disdainful of men. However, being human and always seeking love and acceptance they default to finding love with other women and hence "Choose" to become homosexual. They were not hiding some innner feeling for other women, but rather seeking love in the arms of person who was not a man due to the traumatic events which she associates with men. Therefore, She made a choice to become a homosexual.

B. The argument Pro is making is not about homosexuality, but rather "pan sexuality".
-For this debate, I am excluding the other definitions of "Pan sexuality" for the same reasons the Pro excludes the other sexual definitions of the word "homosexuality".
- Pan sexuality is the choice to love whomever an individual chooses for the sake of pursuing a happy life with a person they love. With this being said, Pro cannot argue an individuals attraction to someone of the same sex is "something they are born with" due to [1] Their incorrect definition / clarification of the word they choose to argue for it creates confusion in the theoretical discourse of the topic. [2] The actual word they are putting forth to defend, defines itself as a choice, not a trait given from birth.

C. The argument the Pro is putting forth is being stated from a personal view with conditional factual definitions, therefore giving the Con the burden of proving that a person is not born with the trait of "loving someone of the same sex".
-The pro must show evidence that this trait is biologically apart of an individuals person, in order to argue that this state of mind is not a choice, but rather "who they are".
-The pros argument states that although one can deny being "homosexual" they still are none the less. I would like to answer this argument with my first argument relating to examples of why this cannot always be the case. And if it is not always the case, then the pro cannot imply that all homosexuals have been homosexuals since birth.

In conclusion, The viewers should default to the Cons arguments as being more logically sound, more fluent and conclusive of the fact that "homosexuality" (or in this particular debate) "pan sexuality", is a choice and not a trait which individuals have since birth and choose to deny only because of society's majority view on the subject of two people of the same sex being intimate with one another.
Debate Round No. 1
CopperRoses

Pro

"Most will argue that people will "hide" their true feelings by having relations with people of the opposite sex in order to stay "acceptable" to the majority of society"
I do not believe my opponent can generalise most people"s views in this case.

In regards to my debater"s point about a women being beaten and then choosing to become homosexual as a result of such abuse " I have never heard a homosexual person tell me that they chose to change their sexuality as the result of abuse. Fearing members of the opposite sex does not cause homosexuality, and I have never heard of such a case. If it does indeed exist, it does not account for the majority of the homosexual population. It is also rather insulting to suggest that homosexuality is the result of abuse from the members of the opposite sex. Such examples should not be used in serious debates.

In regards to my debater"s comment about pansexuality: I am arguing about homosexuality, and not pansexuality.
To clarify on the matter, however, I would argue that pansexuality was not a choice. I am dating a pansexual, and am aware that they have the potential ability to fall for and have sexual feelings for a person regardless of sex or gender. As my girlfriend puts it "it"s hearts, not parts". As aforementioned, I believe sexuality is not a choice. My argument still stands. Sexuality is the ability to have feelings for people. It is not a choice.

"-The pro must show evidence that this trait is biologically apart of an individuals person, in order to argue that this state of mind is not a choice, but rather "who they are".
-The pros argument states that although one can deny being "homosexual" they still are none the less. I would like to answer this argument with my first argument relating to examples of why this cannot always be the case. And if it is not always the case, then the pro cannot imply that all homosexuals have been homosexuals since birth."

Here I must acknowledge some mistakes in my opponent"s logic and understanding of my argument. I am not stating that homosexuality is definitely a biological trait. There may or may not be a "homosexual gene" but this is diverting from the debate. I am stating that homosexuality is not a choice. Homosexuality may be the result of a predisposition as a result of environmental and/or biological factors. I need not provide evidence that suggests behaviour is nature or nurture. That is an entirely different argument.

In regards to my opponent"s comment on not always being homosexual: we cannot know this for certain. We may state that sexuality occurs when one becomes pubescent, however I shall look to my previous point: we do not know if sexuality is nature or nurture. It does not matter when a person realises their homosexuality. This is not the issue. The issue here I must address is that homosexuality is never a choice.

I would like to remind my fellow debater that this topic specifically regards homosexuality, and not pansexuality. They are two different sexualities and I would much appreciate that the debate stays on topic.
Donjaundebater1212

Con

First off, I would like to say I am overjoyed to have an actual debate to participate in as it has been such a long off season for me. Second of all, in this speech I will be extending two my previous arguments and rebutting his responses. As an opening statement and as the basic idea for this speech, this must be understood:

The Con has the burden to prove that a "state of mind" is a choice rather than apart of particular people. Due to the conditional meanings of the word the Pro provides and defines it as, this is seemingly impossible (I will go into detail in the arguments below). With this being said, the voters are left to lean to the side of logic, rather than assumption as the Pro states clearly in his previous speech: "we do not know if sexuality is nature or nurture."
Nature is the side my opponent has taken obviously because nature would be the reason for such a state of mind to have existed in certain people from birth. If the Pro is unsure about his basis argument for this debate, the Con wins by default.

A. Examples of chosen homosexuality:
-"I have never heard a homosexual person tell me that they chose to change their sexuality as the result of abuse. Fearing members of the opposite sex does not cause homosexuality, and I have never heard of such a case. If it does indeed exist, it does not account for the majority of the homosexual population. "

-First mistake the Pro makes is by saying they have never heard a homosexual person tell them that they chose to change their sexuality as the result of abuse. If my arguments validity is simply on what my opponent has "heard" and "not heard" there can be no fair debate.
-Second, Although the opponent opens his mind to the possibility of my example provided, he says that it cannot account for the entire population of homosexuals. This I can agree with; one portion does not make the population.
However, it does require the Pro to refine his definition of the term "homosexuality" to rule out all strait people who have *chosen* to become homosexuals after a certain event. When he does this of course, he can no longer call the debate "homosexuality is not a choice" because of instances where it is. If this state of mind is found in such a profound, well-known population of individuals which he intends to encompass with his argument then he cannot proclaim the reason everyone of these individuals is homosexual be it by "nature or nurture".
-Third and in conclusion of this argument, I do agree that some individuals are more prone to homosexual tendencies their whole life for biological reasons. There is no denying that people are born with more hormones than others, which can be attributed to why they grow up and live the life of a homosexual. However, because of the portion of people who have chosen to live this lifestyle, one cannot state "homosexuality" is never a choice.
-It is the burden of the Con to prove that Homosexuality is a choice and nothing more or less. With the arguments which have been provided so far I feel that the Con has fulfilled that task.

B. Homosexuality V.s Pan sexuality
In this argument I would like to make clear that the definitions of these words are understood before I proceed with my second argument:

-Homosexuality:a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex.
-(The Pro's interpretation of Homosexuality for this debate) :being someone who has the feelings towards members of the same sex in the first place.
-Sexuality: Capacity for sexual feelings. A person's sexual orientation or preference.
-Sexual feelings: Relating to the instincts, physiology, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate contact between individuals which instigates an emotional state or reaction.
-Pan sexuality:Not limited or inhibited in sexual choice with regard to gender or activity.A person who is sexually inclusive in this way.
-Ability:The capacity to do or have something

The Pro asks to limit the debate to the topic of one person preferring to find intimate feelings for another person of the same sexual orientation.
I admit, the term "Pan sexual" and "homo sexual" are different but by the Pro's definition of homosexual, only slightly so.

- "I believe sexuality is not a choice. My argument still stands. Sexuality is the ability to have feelings for people. It is not a choice." -Pro
Unless the Pro has other altered definitions of words concerning this topic this is what the Pro has said:
" I believe that a capacity for sexual feelings or person's sexual orientation or preference is not a choice. (A "preference" is a choice for something better than something else.) My argument still stands. The capacity for sexual feelings or a person's sexual orientation or preference is the capacity to have something ("something" being feelings which they have chosen to embrace be it by "nature or nurture" ). It is not a choice."

In the definitions provided above, sexuality talks about "sexual feelings" which talk about developing feelings which are only possible by interaction such as thoughts or activities where two people would be together. By this logic, a person can become homosexual by having intimate feelings or attractions to another person of the same sex, and choose to embrace them.With respect to the Pro's interpretation of Homosexuality, I am not saying that they embrace them for sexual purposes but rather for love or as my opponents girl-friend so cleverly puts it:" it's hearts, not parts".

This once again Proves that Homosexuality is more than likely a choice. I respectfully ask the voters as this topic is a very delicate subject for some, to stay unbiased to their preferences and within the confines of this debate where the Con has taken the more logical, credible approach to this matter where as the Pro bases his intelligence on the subject off only people he has met.

C. Technicalities

In this argument I would like to explain to the Voters why:
-"Due to the conditional meanings of the word the Pro provides and defines it as, this is seemingly impossible." -Con
The Pro seeks to prove that an individual who is a homosexual will always look for love from a person of the same sex because is their nature. He proceeds to say near his closing:

"In regards to my opponent"s comment on not always being homosexual: we cannot know this for certain. We may state that sexuality occurs when one becomes pubescent, however I shall look to my previous point: we do not know if sexuality is nature or nurture. It does not matter when a person realizes their homosexuality. This is not the issue. The issue here I must address is that homosexuality is never a choice."-Pro

If my opponent states multiple times in one paragraph that no one can be sure why people are homosexuals, then how can he say its never a choice? If it was never a choice, it would be for a reason that the person could do nothing about such as a biological matter.

In conclusion The Con should win this debate for the following reasons:
1. In argument "A" I provided three reasons as to why Homosexuality is a choice.
2. In argument "B" I provided definitions which the Pro must use in order to support his case which Imply the need to choose or for a choice to be made. If his statements define themselves in such a way then the Pro concedes that Homosexuality is a choice.
3. in argument"C"My opponent admits in his argument that there is no way to know why people are homosexual, therefore the Con wins for providing a logical explanation for people who have this lifestyle.

Once again I ask the voters to judge this topic within the confines of this debate. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
CopperRoses

Pro

CopperRoses forfeited this round.
Donjaundebater1212

Con

Seeing that my opponent has forfeited his closing arguments for the third round, I will be concluding my arguments as to why I, the Con, should win, as well as writing a rebuttal on the debate as a whole. My opening statement is as follows.

This debate has discussed whether or not a homosexual individual does or does not choose to embrace a homosexual lifestyle. This debate focuses on the definition of the word "homosexual" as a person who is born being attracted to someone else of the same sex. This debate does not discuss "homosexuality's" intimately sexual connotations. As the Con, it has been my goal to prove that homosexuality is a choice. Upon proving this in any form, the Con should win for completing the task of doing so and proving the Pro to be wrong. I ask once again that the voters please judge this debate within the confines of the debate and not vote based on personal preference but rather how both sides carried their arguments and how they based their reasoning.The following statements are the reasons the Con should win this particular debate.

-My opponent argues that "homosexuality is never a choice." However, if it is the burden of the Con to prove otherwise, then simply proving an instance where an individual *chooses* to proclaim themselves as a homosexual, the Con wins. Due to the fact that the Pro states that my example is possible and shows no effort to discredit this argument, the Con has met the task to prove this lifestyle is a choice and therefore should win this debate. I would also like to remind the voters as to why they should still consider the Cons example credible regardless of how the Pro contests this in round 2.

- [1] The Pro states he has never heard of my example happening before. However, if my arguments validity is simply on what my opponent has "heard" and "not heard" there can be no fair debate.[2]The Pro is very unclear about the rules of this debate. He seems to not understand that if the Con provides a logical example of when homosexuality would be a choice and he makes no effort to contest this, the voters must default to the Con as the winner. [3] "we do not know if sexuality is nature or nurture. It does not matter when a person realizes their homosexuality. This is not the issue. The issue here I must address is that homosexuality is never a choice." -Pro ; If the Pro is unsure about the reason individuals live a homosexual lifestyle and then continues to state very clearly that homosexuality is not a choice, then what is it? The Pro does not know! The Con should win simply on the grounds of the Pros indecisiveness on this topic.
I would also like to extend my reasons that I should win from the previous round.

1. In argument "A" I provided three reasons as to why Homosexuality is a choice.
2. In argument "B" I provided definitions which the Pro must use in order to support his case which Imply the need to choose or for a choice to be made. If his statements define themselves in such a way then the Pro concedes that Homosexuality is a choice.
3. In argument"C"My opponent admits in his argument that there is no way to know why people are homosexual, therefore the Con wins for providing a logical explanation for people who have this lifestyle.

once again Proves that Homosexuality is more than likely a choice. I respectfully ask the voters as this topic is a very delicate subject for some, to stay unbiased to their preferences and within the confines of this debate where the Con has taken the more logical, credible approach to this matter where as the Pro bases his intelligence on the subject off only people he has met.

In conclusion, The viewers should default to the Cons arguments as being more logically sound, more fluent and conclusive of the fact that "homosexuality" is and can be a choice. I have respectfully argued my views without overstepping any of the delicate barriers this topics encompasses and carried my arguments with logic and professional debate etiquette. I ask that the voters please vote for the Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Fictional_Truths1 3 years ago
Fictional_Truths1
CopperRosesDonjaundebater1212Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better arguments, didn't forfeit, and pro used antecodal examples.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
CopperRosesDonjaundebater1212Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF