The Instigator
D7th
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jo154676
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexuality to Heterosexuality

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/20/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 551 times Debate No: 98265
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

D7th

Pro

Can a homosexual, become heterosexual?
I think it's possible.

I assert homosexuality is not genetic, but mental; that homosexuality, is an abstraction of 'human competitive nature'.

Boys will be boys...

"There is a woman, long lost, in every homosexual man's imagination".

'Human competitive nature' spans from small-scale to large-scale; for example, simple games, and then, war...

The abstraction of, this nature, can be abstruse.

The long lost woman of the homosexual man's imagination, is hard to keep track of.

A homosexual man may find comfort in pure-homosexuality (where there is no alternative); he may endure a life, and sexual life, without woman.

Further on 'human competitive nature' and how it links to homosexuality...

Life is largely about love, and humans will compete for love...

Sometimes a lifestyle, is preferred, over choice of partner.

If your desired lifestyle is deemed out of reach, you will opt for an alternative.

Sometimes, we prefer choice of partner.

Competition surrounding lifestyle, and choice of partner, is often harsh; and good competition is scarce, these days...

Restrictions on lifestyle, or choice of partner (law, social systems, etc) have a great effect on a man's mind.

To conclude, it's okay to be gay but, why, if you can have a woman?
jo154676

Con

While I am not a homosexual, I can relate to this argument just like everyone else, because we do not choose what turns us on. There is no switch that activates your hormones, and you can't spawn an erection at your will. Some people are attracted to men, and women just do not turn them on, just like how some straight guys like boobs more than butts. They did not choose that, it just happens and no matter how hard they try they cannot change what turns them on. Another example is pedophiles, who suffer from a mental disorder (pedophilia), they did not choose to like children and they often are depressed (1) because they can't stand the fact that they are attracted to children. If they were able to change then they would but they cannot.

In conclusion, you cannot choose who or what you are attracted to, so homosexuals cannot just become heterosexual. By the way while I agree that women are more attractive than men, that opinion is completely subjective so to say why be gay if you can have a woman is unnecessary.

1. (http://www.vice.com...)
Debate Round No. 1
D7th

Pro

His argument:

A (pure-)homosexual cannot force an erection for a female!

My argument: "I beg to differ".

1. A (pure-)homosexual cannot force an erection for a female!
2. cannot force an erection for a female!
3. A human cannot be attracted to that which it doesn't feel attraction for.

In theory, an erection is, a step ahead. You can't, force, an erection to come naturally, for what you're not attracted to, but carefully, you may, metaphorically, tune it.

Con, thinks, but cannot confirm, that a purely homosexual male cannot become heterosexual.

I disagree...

A purely homosexual man, wants, male on male sexual intercourse, or a, type of, life, with a male; want, is determined by what's available!

Scenario:
What's available is a bunch of males and a bunch of females; and you don't want the females; you want the males.

Want, is a choice, between one or the other - the females are definitely an option.

You're not attracted to females, in the same way as you're not attracted to eating a certain food; either because of nature, or nurture.

I argue, homosexuality is nurture, and refer Con to the original post to contest what I've said instead of inanely voicing an opinion that relevance to victory of this argument (I almost fell asleep).
jo154676

Con

"Want is based on what is available" well not really. I can want a dinosaur even though there are none left alive. If there was a homosexual man and he was the last man alive and the rest of the world was female he would still be attracted to men. He might engage in sex with those women in order to preserve the human race but that does not mean he enjoyed it or that he is in fact heterosexual. Ok well whether or not it is nurture is irrelevant to the fact that once you become one or the other then you can't just switch. If this was true then it would also be true that every heterosexual man can also be a homosexual.

Now let's refer back to your original post, which is poorly organized and quite hard to follow because I guess you are just too cool to write in paragraphs like the rest of the world. If you were right in this then in places where homosexuality was illegal, there would be no homosexuality. However this is not the case, and people in certain middle eastern countries engage in the activity knowing that they could be thrown off a building or stoned to death for committing the acts. What part of human nature would but a voluntary "want" ahead of your own life and well being. Last little point you mention the long lost woman, but you have no proof of this.
Debate Round No. 2
D7th

Pro

'"Want is based on what is available" well not really' - Con's argument.

I disagree.

Con's example " I can want a dinosaur even though there are none left alive", is false because you have seen a picture or there is some other type of knowledge present.

The rest of that paragraph wasn't major and it's not worthwhile responding to it.

"Now let's refer back to your original post, which is poorly organized and quite hard to follow because I guess you are just too cool to write in paragraphs like the rest of the world" - Con's argument.

You couldn't follow the original, then why did you accept the debate?

Con's example "If you were right in this then in places where homosexuality was illegal, there would be no homosexuality," is irrelevant!

It's a mix and match here, but scanning through the rest of the paragraph to try and find a part that correlates to this statement.

"However this is not the case, and people in certain middle eastern countries..."

How does this relate to the prior statement? I'm lost for words, but I imagine this is Con's 'technique'.

"Last little point you mention the long lost woman, but you have no proof of this."

It's impossible to prove something imaginary, Con.
jo154676

Con

People want God and want to believe in it even though there is no evidence for it, it's called faith. The middle east part was referring to the illegality of homosexuality, as it is illegal in some middle eastern countries, and yet there are still homosexuals there. If it is impossible to prove something imaginary then don't bring up imaginary things and act like they for sure exist then. You did not rebutt anything else I wrote about, probably because you have no argument. All you say is I disagree, without ever showing any evidence or even making an argument, and I do not know where this unearned sense of superiority came from but you should probably cut that out.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by D7th 1 year ago
D7th
Literally.
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
sboss18
"To conclude, it's okay to be gay but, why, if you can have a woman?"
Because I am not attracted to women sexually. I find their downstairs bits frightening and unsightly.
No votes have been placed for this debate.