Sexuality is a choice
Debate Rounds (5)
I wish good luck to both of us!
In 1990 began the Human Genome Project. It was completed in 2003, two years ahead of schedule. The purpose was not to find a gay gene in the human genome, but to identify and map out 20,000-25,000 genes in the human genome. Approxamatly 23,000 genes were identified. Not a single one was identified as a gay gene. My opponent now has the burden of proof as to whether the gay gene actually exisists
Conclusion- The gay gene just does not exist so homosexuality cannot possibly be biological or genetic
Contention 2- The Psychological Factor
There are plenty of psychological factors in the "Is Sexuality A Choice" Debate that point to yes, it is a choice
Abuse- Many people, gay and straight, have been victim of abuse as a child. This abuse can range from, mental, emotional, sexual, physical and even neglect. The responses to these forms of abuse are different from person to person. It can range from acting out violently toward the opposite or same sex, promiscuity, self abuse, and even homosexuality.
In a study done by the Masters-Johnson Institute a 25 year old homosexual man revealed his first sexual experience to be with an older gay man arranged by his lesbian mother. after 3 1/2 years of treatment due to the desire to be straight, his sexual interactions were now exclusively heterosexual.
Alfred Kinsey, a prominant biologist conducted many psychological tests on groups of homosexuals. One of the studies by the Kinsey Institute in 1970 showed 81% of 684 gay men and 93% of 293 lebians shifted their sexual orientation.
In 1940 a study of 1700 homosexuals only 9% claimed they were born gay. In 1970 a similar percent was said of 983 homosexuals. It was not until 1983 when the gay movement really took off, that the percent of homosexuals who claimed to be born gay rose to 35%
Going back to the abuse claim. A girl who identifies as lesbian says she was largely ignored by her father as a young child and now, at the age of 16, says the same thing of him She admits that while she knows he loves her, he has never actually said "I love you" or shown any kind of affection towards her. However, her mother always did. She says her mother has always stuck by her no matter what. When she was diagnosed with Juvinile Rhumadoid Arthritis, it was her mother who took her to the doctor. It was her mother who comforted her. It was her mother who took her to her check ups. Her only other role model is a lesbian woman who is best friends with her mother. She has no male role models in her life, be it significant or insignificant. It is obvious from a psychological standpoint that the girl's father neglected her need for affection but her mother did not, therefore she, from a young age, can only associate love and affection with females.
Conclusion- There are many environmental factors, be it a political movement or abuse or whatever, that psychologically affect sexuality
Contention 3- The God Factor
If we were to exclude atheists and anyone else who does not ascribe to a belief system involving a diety, we can all agree that God loves everyone regardless, but there are also a set of rules in which we must obey set forth by this God, no matter what we call him. We must agree that this God is all powerful and does not make mistakes, We must also agree that there are many things that God does not want us to do in which we do. That does not mean He loves us less, just that we should not do it. One of those things that God tells us not to do is practice homosexuality. I do not believe that any sin is worse than the other, but this shows that God did not intend for homosexuality to be practiced, and if we agree that God does not make mistakes, we must agree that homosexuality is a choice made by man
Conclusion- If we agree there is a God and we agree on His personality and heart as described by the three top religions in the world (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) we must agree that He did not intend for men and women to be gay, therefore he would not have created them to be so
Contention 4- Cynthia Nixon (Psychology part 2)
Cynthia Nixon, an actress, was previously married to a man. After their divorce, she started a relationship with a woman. While I cannot say whether or not this happens every day to many women, it does happen. A woman will be sexually attracted to a man then after a failed relationship or a number of failed relationships, she decides to see what a woman can do for her, both physically and emotionally. This is a sign of a conscious choice made by a person to be homosexual, whereas, the previous example I gave about the girl associating love and affection with women due to her distant father was a subconscious choice. Nixon even admitted it was a choice.
Conclusion- Homosexuality can be either a conscious or subconscious choice
Contention 5- Lady Gaga, Dan Savage, and the It Gets Better Movement (Psychology part 3)
Lady Gaga, a popular entertainer, dropped her debut album, The Fame, in 2008. She released a song Alejandro in 2009. The song was said to be in support of gay marriage. The song was released, admittedly by Gaga, in response to her huge gay following. In The Fame, there were no gay themes to her songs. This was followed by her next album, Born This Way, which had several gay impowerment songs, including the title track, promoting the idea that a homosexual is born gay
Shortly before the release of Born This Way, Dan Savage, a syndicated columnist, started the It Gets Better Movement in response to a rash of 2010 suicides of gay youth resulting from bullying. While I fully support the idea of trying to prevent more teen suicides, this movement, like Gaga, supports the idea that you are born gay and it is not a choice you have. This is an example of how propaganda can influence one to believe a certain way.
Conclusion- Media propaganda can influence one to believe they are born gay
I admit my final contention is probably petty, but that is not a concession. I eagerly await my opp's rebuttal, and thank her for accepting this challenge
Firstly, my opponents mentions the Human Genome Project and claims there has been no findings of a gay gene. However, recent reports say otherwise: http://www.medicaldaily.com... Male homosexuality may actually be genetic while female homosexuality is more questionable at this point.
My opponent also mentions that many people may turn to homosexuality as a result of child abuse. This is also inaccurate as statistics in the US about child abuse are estimated at 16% for male sexual abuse and 27% for female sexual abuse. Only about 1.51% of the US population identifies as homosexual. http://www.pandys.org... More common consequences of child abuse and neglect include shaken baby syndrome(only if the child in question is a young baby obviously), impaired brain development, depression, anti-social behaviour, alcohol/drug abuse, abusive behaviour themselves, and other. http://www.childwelfare.gov...
My opponent mentions a university study about a homosexual man turning straight after therapy. He has failed to provide sources therefore we know nothing about the man. Was he displaying homosexual traits in his behaviour from a young age? Was his mother pressuring him to be homosexual from a young age? These all of course bring up another point worth mentioning. Many children from a young age show traits that are perceived as being "homosexual". Just very recently there was a five year old boy in Germany being teased for wearing dresses by his own free will. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... Unless this is just a simple case of a child ignoring gender roles(which most children wouldn't really even grasp the social concepts surrounding these in the first place) it's likely he is either homosexual or transsexual. If a child was doing such things after puberty then there could be a case perhaps that homosexuality is a choice, but this boy is pre-pubescent from what I understand.
As for people "switching" their orientation maybe they were never truly homosexual in the first place and maybe bisexual? However, both my opponent and I agreed that bisexuality will not be discussed in this debate.
My opponent then goes on to mention how the numbers of people claiming to be born homosexual has risen over the years. One factor contributing to this could be the fact that now with homosexuality becoming more and more accepted more people are willing to be open about these kinds of things. As we all know society evolves and so do the values represented in society.
Next my opponent mentions the religious perspective. It is pretty much universally accepted among all religions that God is loving. Now one may be wondering that if God is loving why would he make gay people and then condemn them? There can be a pretty simple answer to this; just like how unmarried straight people are expected to control their urges the same could be said for homosexuals as well. Maybe it's just another test from God?
Lastly, my opponent mentions pop culture and it's perceived affect on gay culture. One notable example used is Lady Gaga. While she does have many songs with pro-gay messages she does represent the overall general message of just being yourself. THis is an overall positive message and shouldn't be blamed for people "becoming gay". If they did so then they wouldn't be "being themselves" as Lady Gaga says now would they?
As for suicides and bullying, if one chose to be gay wouldn't they just stop being gay so the bullying would stop? Yet they don't. Why? Is it because they can't help who they're sexually attracted to? I certainly think it could be a major factor.
I now hand the reins over to my opponent. Good luck in round 2!
First and formost, the story about the girl who was neglected by her father which shaped her ideas of love, that girl is a very dear friend of mine. I won't give resources on that because I feel I should protect her identity. Her story, regardless of resources provided, proves my point. Even if it were hypothetical (which at this point surely would seem so), proves my point
The study about the man who was in an arrianged sexual encounter with an older gay man was in a report entitled Born WHAT Way? By Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute. the full article: http://www.biblebelievers.com...
This is where I got many of my statistics. And given that they are from a Christian orginization, may seem biased, but let's look at the stats given by the Kinsey Institute and the Kinsey report.
First we must understand that Alfred Kinsey was not a Christian, like most scientists, so he clearly had nothing to gain from these reports. Why would a Christian orginization publish some findings of some one who was not Christian? To make their beliefs seem more credible. If someone who was not a Christian found these evidences in people, how can anyone say that it is biased?
Also there is a paragraph or two about Sigmund Freud and Richard Isay. Both claimed to have homosexual urges. Sigmund Freud went through a self psychiatric analysis and found that he had greater independence that resulted from him overcoming his homosexuality (in a 1910 letter to Sandor Ferenzci which I was unable to locate the exact letter). Isay on the other hand decided it was best to embrace his homosexuality, pronounce it natural, and divorce his wife and start living as a gay man. the name Sigmund Freud is more recognizable than that of Richard Isay, so how can one refute sigmund freud's claim?
The usage of the german child who wears dresses is a good argument and very interesting. hat's off to you for that. however Gender Identity Disorder is in fact a psychological ailment. It is found in the DSM-IV and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel for Mental Disorders (4th ed). It has been approved by the American Psychiatric Association as a real mental disorder. In saying that I am coming out as saying that I may be inclined to agree with my opp that this could very well be a test from God. On the other hand, that would mean we would both have to catagorize homosexuality as a mental disorder. Is that really fair though? And even if it were catagorized as a mental disorder, there are causes for mental disorders of all kinds. Sometimes they are chemical inbalances, other times like PTSD, caused by events. If homosexuality were not a choice, then it would have to be a mental disorder, most likely akin to PTSD. I would have to ask my opp and any other proponent of sexuality being inborn, if they are comfortable calling it a mental disorder?
My opponent basically agreed that there are societal and environmental factors in which sway one to come out and say they were born gay. this is a concession and point goes to me
As I stated before I could agree that Homosexuality, like many other temptations, are a test from God. What this boils down to is the temptation and whether or not we choose to fall into that temptation. Therefore, making it even more evident that homosexuality, like all temptation, is a choice. Will my opp please concede?
I did not follow the order in which my opp attempted to refute my claims. So in response to the Human Genome Project argument, she says that male homosexuality MAY be inborn, while female homosexuality is not. The word "may" that she used means this is still inconclusive. So the question now is which side do we err on? If it's inconclusive how can so many people be sure it's not a choice.
My opponent clearly did not understand the argument about the link between homosexuality and abuse. I never stated that homosexuality was the only response to abuse. Please concede this point
The pop culture reference I made was a very good one and my opps response was very good. Accepting yourself for who you are is certainly not a bad thing. I fully support that. However the message Gaga sends is vastly different than reality. She says accept your homosexuality because you were born that way, not accept your homosexuality because you chose to be this way. And while I would normally be inclined to agree with my opp that Lady Gaga's overall message is to just be happy with who you are no matter what the problem you face is, I have Spina Bifida. It is a physical defect which you are actually born with. I have never seen Gaga throw any support towards the Spina Bifida Association or any other cause other than the LGTB groups. This clearly shows that Gaga is 100% for the gay community (not a bad thing) and her message of being ok with who you are is for the gay community only. Her messages are 100% pro-gay and promote the belief that you are born gay (if you are infact gay)
Finally my opp addressed suicides among gay youth. She said if one was bullied for being gay and it was a choice, why cant they turn away from it? The answer is simple. Who said they wanted to? There are evidences which I have provided that state that you CAN turn from it. But the kids who are bullied may not want to turn from being gay. This is evidenced by a kid with glasses who gets called four eyes and is teased for wearing glasses. He has the option at some point to get contacts does he not? Or a red haired kid who is teased for having red hair. He could just dye it couldn't he. A fat person (which is almost always a choice) gets teased for being fat. He has the option to work out, change is eating habits and lose weight. Bullying is universal and not just limited to gay people. The overall bottom line to this arguement is people get bullied for various reasons and more often than not there is the choice to change a behavior.
In my opponent's second point he brings up a study conducted by a Christian group. He does point out hat the scientists involved are not Christian. However, isn't it possible that Christians would only publish data that supports their own preconceived viewpoints? You wouldn't see a YEC group publishing findings by an evolutionary biologist now would you? Opinions even within the scientific community are so varied so any group could find almost anything to support their own agenda.
My opponent also mentions Sigmund Freud and Richard Isay and claims the former overcame homosexuality. I do not know much about Sigmund Freud's personal life nor his research but it's also possible he wasn't fully homosexual or he changed due to social pressure(he obviously lived in a time when homosexuality was still very demonized).
As for the German boy my opponent brings up a good point that he may be suffering from gender identity disorder. Unfortunately from the one article it is impossible to determine whether he is experiencing attraction to other boys or not. Many children do begin experiencing these things at young ages. According to the following article a 11 year old boy committed suicide due to being bullied for homosexuality. http://www.parenting.com... Sure it's not the same age range but surely any child could have similar attractions?
Also, if homosexuality was indeed made as a test from God that wouldn't necessarily mean it's a mental disorder as my opponent suggests. It could be a natural thing as God also expects straight people to control their urges. However, even if it was proven to be a mental disorder who is to force them to seek treatment and change? If they're happy being in same sex relationships then it's a harmless disorder unlike something like pedophilia.
While there are societal and environmental factors that encourage "coming out" that still proves nothing about whether homosexuality is natural or not.
It is true that Lady Gaga caters largely to a LGBT audience while delivering her "Born This Way" messages. However, if you listen to her song entitled "Born This Way" she also mentions that people should be proud of their race and ethnicity as well. http://www.metrolyrics.com... Her main activism is with LGBT groups but isn't it true they're currently fighting for rights and recognition just like African-Americans once did?
Lastly, my opponent mentions that people get bullied for lifestyle choices which just concedes my original point. Lifestyles can often be easily changed while physical defects often cannot be. If being homosexual truly was just a lifestyle choice wouldn't it be easier to change?
Good luck in the next round!
I have your arguements and my new post side by side so it is easier for me to hit each point in order
Of course her analogy about her and dogs does not mean all dogs would tear her face off. However, as I have mentioned in an earlier argument, my friend's closest relationships are with her mom and her mom's best friend (who happens to be a female as well). My friend whom I mentioned is unable to make the connection between love and men. That doesnt mean that a man couldnt love her. Your personal relationships shape and mold your veiws of the same sex, the opposite sex, and the whole world as well. There have been studies shown that children with absent and even distant fathers are more likely to identify as gay/lesbian. At this point my computer is not cooperating with me so I am forced to give up trying to post links to similar studies. I refuse to concede on account of my computer being an jerk
I acknowledged that a Christian group would be biased, but the point I was trying to make was if the studies were found by men who were not Christian, how can it truely be biased?
I admitted to not know much about Isay, however upon doing research on him for this debate, I learned he died in June of this year at the age of 77. http://en.wikipedia.org... Two of his books, Being Gay and Becoming Homosexual were written in 1989 and 1996 respectively. This is before homosexuality had even started to become as accepted as it is currently in America. How can my opp argue that Freud felt pressure by his society to become straight when Isay embraced his homosexuality before homosexuality became PC? I'd also like to point out again that Freud made more significant contributions to the fields of psychology and psychoanalysis as a whole than Isay.
Conclusion- Both Freud and Isay lived in times where homosexuality was demonized but one was able to decide it was not a good choice to be homosexual and the other felt the opposite
As far as the Gender Identity Disorder argument, some people would consider homosexuality to be under the scope of GID. I believe there is no such definition as laid out by the DSM-IV, APA, or Diagnostic and Statisical Manual for Mental Disorders.
As such stated above, I must call my opp out for putting words in my mouth. I never said I wanted to call Homosexuality a mental disorder. I said whether she and any proponents of homosexuality being inborn would be more comfortable calling it a mental disorder than a choice. This may have been a rhetorical question, but I really am curious what she has to say on that question I posed in my last argument. Also, on the topic of God, my opp never answered my question. My question was, if Homosexuality is a test from God, wouldn't it, like all temptation, be a choice to give into or not? Please answer this. I have seen no answer or attempt at refutiation
I may have to be more clear. When I said there were societal and environmental factors in which encourage people to come out, I was also trying to convey that those same societal and environmental factors influence them to say their homosexuality was not a choice.
I was about to concede my opps point about Born This Way after i read the lyrics. Then I read them. And took an arrow to the knee. There is infact mention of African Americans, Asian, and Lebanese. But the mentions are so few it gets lost in the obvious gay propaganda. I also think that comparing one's skin color or nationality to one's sexuality is not fair. Race and nationality are not something one can choose. That is pretty much universally accepted.
Again, my opp didn't even attempt to answer my question. She asked why would someone not change their sexuality if they were being bullied about it. I asked why would they want to? A perfect example I could give is my own. I get constantly rideculed for going to strip clubs by my sisters, mother and father. It would be my choice to stop. By why would I want to if it made me happy? I could easily stop. But why? Now I may have tougher skin than the gay kids who get bullied for being gay, but that changes nothing.
I apologize for my computer not wanting to cooperate with me on finding those statistics in the earlier arguement I made of this round about familial relations and homosexuality. If I have the ability to I will provide them in my closing arguments. I would implore my opp to answer fully the questions in which I posed to her.
Good luck! final round's coming up soon
My opponent seems to be having computer issues thus couldn't post sources. I'll accept this and move onto my rebuttals.
My opponent mentions that his friend has a much closer relationship with the female figures in her life and that studies have been done stating that in cases like this many females end up lesbian. While that may be true in some case it's not entirely accurate. To give my own personal example I was never very close to my father yet I'm not a lesbian. Also, my lesbian friend has a strong relationship with both her parents. There's many similar cases to this so isn't it a bit unfair to conclude that homosexuality stems from poor paternal relationships?
On my opponent's second point, the study could very well be biased since even among the academic world there's differences in data and anybody can publish whatever they want from whoever they want so my original point there still stands. Logically a Christian would publish different data than a LGBT activism group would.
As for the points about Isay and Freud, yes homosexuality was demonized in their time but wouldn't that just be cause to live a heterosexual lifestyle? Despite being a work of fiction I'll use the movie "Brokeback Mountain" as an example. As most people know it's a story about two homosexual cowboys who remain secretive about their love for each other due to social taboos. They even live heterosexual lives with women despite their love for each other. *Note: I have not actually seen the movie but I do know the basis of the plot.* Freud could have very well lived in a similar way, which is something we wouldn't know for sure unless we knew his innermost thoughts.
I will like to say that I did indeed answer my opponent's question about God last round unless there was something I misunderstood? I'll give my opponent a chance next round to clarify on this. Also, no I think most homosexuals would be offended by their sexuality being called a mental disorder if that is what he's asking. Homosexuality was indeed listed as a mental disorder until 1975 when enough conflicting evidence was found against this. A disorder is generally defined as a condition that impairs a person. http://dictionary.reference.com... Homosexuality hasn't shown any evidence of doing so except that homosexuals are more likely to contract cetain STD's but that is found to likely be due to their differences in intercourse rather than homosexuality itself. http://www.science20.com...
I'm not really sure which kind of point my opponent was trying to make when mentioning the effect of societal and environmental factors on people "coming out". I'll give him a chance to clarify that as well.
It is true that Lady Gaga's hit song mostly discusses homosexuality, but as I said isn't it true they're the ones currently fighting for recognition? Most revolutionary movements do include inspirational music. Racism isn't nearly as much of a problem in America now as it was previously thus that could be a factor why Lady Gaga chooses not to touch on it.
Lastly, my opponent makes the point that one wouldn't change their sexuality due to being bullied if it makes them happy. However, if one is being bullied are they truly happy? Probably not so that's a moot point.
Good luck in the final round. :)
http://www.fatherhood.org.... In the report, there is proof of a wide spectrum of things that are caused by an absent or distant father, weight problems, poverty, even sexual issues. Among these sexual issues is trouble developing healthy relationships with men. The example given has nothing to do with homosexuality, but says it talks about the study subjects desiring affection and attention from men. I believe the same could be said about a woman desiring attention and affection from women if that is all theyve ever known. I never never said that this was the be all end all. I always said abuse manifests itself in many ways and the reaction to abuse manifests itself in many different ways as well. Revert back to my earlier arguments. At some point, we on this site have to not rely on statistics and resources as much and at least give consideration to common sense as well. Yes, not every male or female who is abused by someone (not just fathers) is going to turn out to be homosexual. And yes, not every male or female is going to turn out even the least bit scared from not having a father figure. My own father is in the airforce and my mother was physically abusive. Due to the absence of my father and the abuse of my mother, I am more withdrawn and have not developed many social skills and have a propensity toward anger. One of my sisters was not abused by my mother but was greatly affected by my father's absence. She seeks out love and affection from men, having go through a different boyfriend every three months. My youngest sister, however, was not affected at all and leads a happy life.
The family research center report I provided did a pretty good job of providing sources. Better than I did
I have not seen Brokeback Mountain either, so I may be willing to concede her example. However, My understanding of the movie was the cowboys were married with kids BEFORE meeting. I believe that this proves my point. Sexuality (like the title of this debate states) is a choice. This isn't just exclusive to homosexuals. But heterosexuals as well.
I may have miss understood your answer to the question regarding God and homosexuality being a choice due to it 1. being against God's character to make people homosexuals willy nilly if he hates homosexuality and 2. there being the temptation factor involved as I was looking for a "yes" or "no" answer. I thought it was a simple question that required that simple of an answer
Societal and environmental factors. This means that the people homosexuals surround themselves with and the propaganda these days that attempt to inundate us all with the homosexual lifestyle influence people to come out as homosexual and influence them to claim they were born homosexual. Propaganda has that sort of effect on SOME people. Adolf Hitler knew this all to well http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk....
My opp seems to not understand that there are SEVRERAL groups fighting discrimination. African Americans still today, fight discrimination. It may not be on the same scale as it was 50-60 years ago, but it happens. Having a physical disability, I get discriminated when trying to find a job. It happens to alot of people, no matter who they are
I cannot consider the bullying issue moot just yet. They could always change as per the examples I gave before, but why would they want to? In the case of homosexual bullying, yes they can turn away from it. It would be hard, but they can. The reason as to why they would not want to is like I said, societal and environmental reasons. This does not mean that words don't hurt, they do. Take the case of Jamey Rodemeyer http://en.wikipedia.org.... He was open and proud of being gay (according to wiki, bisexual) yet still fell to the horrors of bullying and commited suicide.
Finally I wanted to refer back to an argument my opp made that a gay gene may be in mice. This reminds me of a meme I saw a while back. Homosexuality is found in over 1500 species, homophobia is found in one. Which is normal now? First, I have to admit that I never understood how there was a link between mice genes and human genes. We are two different species. Second, I also must admit that homophobia, like xenophobia, is horrible. Like Morgan Freeman said, you are not scared, you are an @$$hole. Sorry I cant use cuss words in debates. Third, these people who honestly hold to this, that homosexuality is normal and inborn, don't realize that some of the same over 1500 species in which homosexuality is normal, eat their own fecal matter. Some of them eat their own young. Would my opp or any other proponent of homosexuality is inborn say that eating one's own young or fecal matter is normal? I would hope not.
I'd like to thank my opp for this debate. it was fun
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bencbartlett 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||2|
Reasons for voting decision: I would have given Con argument points, but she essentially forfeited the last round, so I gave pro conduct. However, Pro made a lot of statements that were unsourced, so I gave Con sources. However, I disagree with most of Pro's arguments. Also, I disagree with bringing god into a mainly scientific/sociological debate about sexuality.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.