The Instigator
jackFergusen
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Yusuf94
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Is homosexuality a choice?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 1 vote the winner is...
Yusuf94
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 915 times Debate No: 63824
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

jackFergusen

Con

Homosexuality cannot be choice because then I would be able to choose to be gay, and I cant. I'm straight and there is nothing I can do to change that. I didn't decide to be straight, I just am. I was never even given a choice.
Yusuf94

Pro

Accepted.


I will start my argument by pointing out different definitions of "Homosexuality".

noun:
Sexual attraction to or sexual relations with members of the same sex
Homosexuality:
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
Homosexuality:
1. (Psychology) sexual attraction to or sexual relations with members of the same sex.

Homosexuality (from Ancient Greek P01;μa2;ς, meaning "same", and Latin sexus, meaning "sex") is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality is "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. It "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions."

Sexual Orientation
: A person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

Con stated "Homosexuality cannot be choice because then I would be able to choose to be gay, and I cant. I'm straight and there is nothing I can do to change that. I didn't decide to be straight, I just am. I was never even given a choice.".
In the aforementioned definitions of homosexuality, one can see clearly that there is no sense of compulsion. If sexual orientation is related to genetics, only then this statement "Homosexuality cannot be choice" can be justified. Whereas facts tell us a different story. There is no "gay gene" discovered yet.

Now I will move further with my argument by stating few facts about "Homosexuality".

FACT: "Homosexual Attractions may be involuntry(but they are not immutable); engaging in homo-sexual relations, however, is clearly voluntary".

Myth No. 1
People are born gay.
Fact:
The researchers does not show that anyone "born gay", suggests instead that homosexuality results from a complex mix of developmental factors.

Myth No. 2
Sexual orientation can never change.
Fact:
Thousands of men and women have testified to experiencing a change in their sexual orientaion from homosexual to heterosexual. Research comfirms that such change does occur- sometimes spontaneously, and sometimes as a result of therapeutic interventions.

Myth No. 3
Efforts to change someone's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual are harmful and unethical.
Fact:
There is no scientific evidence that change efforts create greater harm than the homosexual lifestyle itself. The real ethical violation is when clients are denied the opportunity to set their own goals for therapy.

Myth No. 4
Homosexuals do not experience a higher level of psychological disorders than heterosexuals.
Fact:
Homosexuals experience considerably higher level of mental illness and substance abuse than heterosexuals. A detailed review of the research has shown that "no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology.".

Source to verify these facts in details: http://www.frc.org...
(click Continue Reading...)

Let's take a look at what recent research suggests and what science has to say about it.

"Even the rabid left-wing Guardian newspaper in the UK is retreating like the outgoing tide from the lie that homosexuals are born that way.
One of the reasons that homosexual activists bludgeon people into accepting biological determinism with regard to homosexuality is that they must have it. If homosexuality is not in fact genetically caused, they have nothing. Their entire argument, their entire movement, is predicated on the utterly false premise that gayness is the genetic equivalent of race. The foundation on which they stand is their claim that just as no one can do a thing about skin color, so no one can do a thing about sexual orientation.
Without a genetic causation, sexual preference in behavior is clearly a choice, a choice which no one is compelled to make. And that choice can be evaluated in any number of ways, including whether or not it is good for human health and whether or not same-sex households are sub-optimal nurturing environments for vulnerable young children."

"A team of international researchers has completed a study that suggests we will probably never find a ‘gay gene.' Sexual orientation is not about genetics, say the researchers, it's about epigenetics. This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself."

"The scientists offer their model to explain both the tendency of homosexuality to run in families, and the fact that so far no “homosexual gene” has been identified."

"Historians of homosexuality will judge much twentieth-century "science" harshly when they come to reflect on the prejudice, myth, and downright dishonesty that litter modern academic research on sexuality. Take, for example, the lugubrious statements of-once respected investigators. Here is Sandor Feldman, a well-known psychotherapist, in 1956:
It is the consensus of many contemporary psychoanalytic workers that permanent homosexuals, like all perverts, are neurotics.
Or consider the remarks of the respected criminologist Herbert Hendin:
Homosexuality, crime, and drug and alcohol abuse appear to be barometers of social stress... Criminals help produce other criminals, drug abusers other drug abusers, and homosexuals other homosexuals.
The notion of the homosexual as a deeply disturbed deviant in need of treatment was the orthodoxy until only recently. Bernard Oliver, Jr., a psychiatrist specializing in sexual medicine, wrote in 1967 that Dr. Edmond Bergler feels that the homosexual's real enemy is not so much his perversion but [sic] ignorance of the possibility that he can be helped, plus his psychic masochism which leads him to shun treatment....
There is good reason to believe now, more than ever before, that many homosexuals can be successfully treated by psychotherapy, and we should encourage homosexuals to seek this help.
Such views about the origin of homosexual preferences have become part of American political culture as well. When, in 1992, Vice-President Dan Quayle offered the view that homosexuality "is more of a choice than a biological situation.... It is a wrong choice," he merely reasserted the belief that homosexuality reflected psychological condition"
Source: http://www.pbs.org...


Today there are few scientific research that say that homosexuality may depend on genetics. This research was done earlier and later on it was found out that this is totally false. And the person who propounded this was himself a homosexual.
Simon LeVay (born 28 August 1943) is a British-American Neuroscientist. He is renowned for his studies about brain structures and sexual orientation.

"LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. The INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior."".
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...


So is homosexuality a choice? I ask, is being white or black a choice? No, you can't change the color of your skin. So it's not a choice. But when you can change your sex life, then definitely it is a choice.


Debate Round No. 1
jackFergusen

Con

First, I acknowledge the fact that anyone can decide to have sex with a man regardless of sexual orientation, my argument is that attraction to another man is not a choice.

The gay genes existence has kinda been proven (Its more complicated than just one gene) but homosexuality has been contributed to surroundings as well

people can change sexual orientation, but that too can not be a choice, and if testimony claims that they chose to change, then they are wrong or lying, usually because of their religion.

the fact that you call homosexuals perverts tells me that you have never met one, or that if you have, you focused SOLELY on their orientation, when in reality, even if it is a choice, why does it matter? (not part of the debate just saying)

Anyway, onto the actual debate, did I choose to be straight? if I did then that proves that it is a choice. the answer is of course no, I did not. I did not choose anything because no choice was given to me.

"In 1991, a study published in the journal Science seemed to show that the hypothalamus, which controls the release of sex hormones from the pituitary gland, in gay men differs from the hypothalamus in straight men. The third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was found to be more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

can you decide how you are born or how you are raised?

So far, attempts to "cure" homosexuality by operating on the brain " homosexuals were once given lobotomies " have never worked.

(Attempts to eliminate homosexuality via hormone therapy haven"t been effective either. While changes in hormone levels in the womb during a very specific time can have an effect on future sexual preference, hormone levels have no effect on sexual preference afterwards. Gay men and straight men have the same levels of sex hormones; sex hormone levels are the same in gay women and straight women.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I would suggest that you look at the comments under your sources article. I dont even have to do much work because of their arguments.
Yusuf94

Pro

REBUTTALS


"First, I acknowledge the fact that anyone can decide to have sex with a man regardless of sexual orientation, my argument is that attraction to another man is not a choice."
The resolution clealry states "Is Homosexuality a choice". Argument is on whether "HomoSEXUALITY" is a choice or not. Having said that "Sexuality" & "Attraction" are way too different from eachother. Stay firm on your argument.
Definition "Sexuality": http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
sex·u·al·i·ty
n.
1. The condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex.
2. Concern with or interest in sexual activity.
3. Sexual character or potency.
n.
1. sexual character; possession of the structural and functional traits of sex.
2. recognition of or emphasis upon sexual matters.
3. involvement in sexual activity.
4. an organism's preparedness for engaging in sexual activity.

Definition "Attraction": http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
at·trac·tion
n.
1. The act or capability of attracting.
2. The quality of attracting; charm.
3.
a. A feature or characteristic that attracts.
b. A person, place, thing, or event that is intended to attract: The main attraction was a Charlie Chaplin film.
4.
a. The electric or magnetic force exerted by oppositely charged particles, tending to draw or hold the particles together.
b. The gravitational force exerted by one body on another.
n
1. the act, power, or quality of attracting.
2. a person or thing that attracts or is intended to attract.
3. (General Physics) a force by which one object attracts another, such as the gravitational or electrostatic force.
4. 4. (Linguistics) a change in the form of one linguistic element caused by the proximity of another element.


"The gay genes existence has kinda been proven (Its more complicated than just one gene) but homosexuality has been contributed to surroundings as well"

"Kinda been proven"? As I stated clear evidences in previous round, why there is no such thing as a "Gay Gene". And how "Gay Gene" has not been yet discovered AT ALL. It's not my Personal Opinion(unlike con's), I am merely showing what science has to say about it.

"people can change sexual orientation, but that too can not be a choice, and if testimony claims that they chose to change, then they are wrong or lying, usually because of their religion."

No justification or evidence can be found supporting con's statement. Whereas I produced ample of evidences that "people can change sexual orientation". Con stated "but that too can not be a choice", if EVEN A SINGLE HOMOSEXUAL PERSON CHOSE TO BE HETEROSEXUAL it means "Homosexuality is a choice". "They are wrong or lying", Con's personal opinions have no relevance to the topic.

"the fact that you call homosexuals perverts tells me that you have never met one, or that if you have, you focused SOLELY on their orientation, when in reality, even if it is a choice, why does it matter? (not part of the debate just saying)"

As Con stated "not part of the debate just saying". I'd like to inform Con that it's purely a debate. It's not at all my personal opinion or anything related to my point of views. All the articles I provided are not mine(common sense), and I never used terms like "Homosexual Perverts". Con is accusing me for no reason. Whereas Con is constantly bringing up his personal opinions.

"Anyway, onto the actual debate, did I choose to be straight? if I did then that proves that it is a choice. the answer is of course no, I did not. I did not choose anything because no choice was given to me."

Again I will like to remind Con, resolution clealry states "Is homosexuality a choice". I plead Con to not confuse the topic with heterosexuality.

"In 1991, a study published in the journal Science seemed to show that the hypothalamus, which controls the release of sex hormones from the pituitary gland, in gay men differs from the hypothalamus in straight men. The third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH3) was found to be more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men"

My opponent forgot to mention that The study of 1991 was done by Simon LeVay.

Here are his comments on the finding.
"The existence of 'exceptions' in the present sample (that is, presumed heterosexual men with small INAH 3 nuclei, and homosexual men with large ones), hints at the POSSIBILITY that sexual orientation, although an important variable, MAY NOT be the sole determinant of INAH 3 size. It is also POSSIBLE, however, that these exceptions are due to TECHNICAL SHORTCOMINGS or to MISASSIGNMENT of subjects to their subject groups."
http://en.wikipedia.org... (READ THE COMPLETE SECTION UNDER INAH3)

Theses texts I am providing is from the same article, provided by my opponenet.

"You don’t have to defend a controversial action by arguing that you have no control over your behavior. In fact, when you do so, you reinforce the belief that your behavior is undesirable."
"Just as gay people who are happy as they are should not be forced to change their sexual orientation, gay people who want to be straight should have the right to change if they can – and the correct word is “change” – notcure”."

And to understand the subject of the article properly I plead viewers to read the complete article.

Anyway, I'd like to provide another article from the year 2012, from my opponent's source. Posted on 10/01/2012.

Here is the article which was completely on the study published in 1991 as my opponent provided but forgot to mention the fact that the study was done by SIMON LEVAY himself.

Artcle's name is The Paradox of gay genes by Simon LeVay
"In the case of homosexuality, most estimates (derived from twin studies) are that genes etal life -- factors that may not be under genetic control."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

However The Huffington Post forgot to mention the Interview which was conducted later on in 1994, after the study was completed. Maybe it forgot to mention about Simon LeVay and his comments on his own research too.

"LeVay's finding was widely reported in the media" as my opponent mentioned the "study" done in 1991, after that media reported it widely.
And THEN in 1994..
"LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. The INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior.".
Pretty much says everything about everything else.

Again Con provides texts from the same article, viewers I plead you to read the complete article.

"I would suggest that you look at the comments under your sources article. I dont even have to do much work because of their arguments."
I would "suggest" Con to be more reasonable.
Debate Round No. 2
jackFergusen

Con

sweet round three. anyway, tbh, i dont give a crap about this debate. I just want to get three done so I can do stuff.
Yusuf94

Pro

Con Quits.
Pro Wins.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by jackFergusen 2 years ago
jackFergusen
how does this have any comments?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
piller........ You are so wrong. It is just a sex act.I have some very dear male friends and it NEVER leans in that direction. They jumped on that nonsense about being born that way to solicite acceptance for their unnatural desires.and people like you fell for it

if your theory was valid, then the pedophile could make the same excuse. or the rapist.All sex activity can be controlled. I have heard where a girl tells a guy to quit, and he says he can't. I bet if that girls father walked in he could quit like right now.

I never hear how homo's hate themselves. They hate not fitting in. And that is why they are obsessed with gay marriage. As if that will give their unholy lifestyle credibility.i do not advocate outlawing it. What I would do is cut off all public funding to treat their lifestyle medically.And I would never allow them in my home. But that is my right.
Posted by Yusuf94 2 years ago
Yusuf94
Support your arguments with evidence not merely with words. It's a debate, nobody is asking your personal point of view.
For that create a poll.
Posted by PillarOfSalt 2 years ago
PillarOfSalt
cheyennebodie is completely wrong. Of course anyone can have a "homo sex act". Homosexuality is about attraction, not sex. There are homosexuals who are completely abstinent. You can choose to rape someone but you can't choose to love a completely different gender for the rest of your life. Tell me then, cheyennebodie, Could you choose to like the same gender as you self for the rest of your life? Oh yeah, you couldn't. Not because you think it's unnatural, but because you weren't born like that. Maybe if you were gay you would understand that you can't just change. Some people hate themselves because they are gay and they don't want to be. Some have even killed themselves because of it. It if we're that easy to change then there would be a lot less homosexuals in the world. Actions are NOT always a matter of choice loving someone or having a crush is not always your choice just like neither is falling asleep. Falling asleep and falling in love are the same in the sense that they are both involuntary.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Of course it is a choice. Actions are always a matter of choice. And being homo is a sex act.Just like rape or pedophiles. They are choices.And I dare say if you dwell on it long enough , you could be drawn into that nasty lifestyle.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
jackFergusenYusuf94Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con basically forfeited, so the vote goes to Pro.