The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Being gay is not 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
SJM has forfeited round #5.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/4/2017 Category: Health
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 870 times Debate No: 99602
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




First round is acceptance and definitions, second-fourth is for new arguments and rebuttals, fifth is for rebuttals only.



Gay- of, relating to, or used by homosexuals

Homosexual- of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.


1: All I have to do as the Con is show that the Pro side does not prove gay is not a choice.
2: The burden of proof is on the Pro.
3: Since there is no quantifier in the resolution i.e. ALL or SOME gays aren't gays by choice, then I would only have to prove one case in which a gay person is gay by choice in order to win this debate, if I decide to go this route.
Debate Round No. 1


Let me clarify, bisexuals are not gay, pansexuals are not gay, asexuals are not gay. We are speaking solely about homosexuals-someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex. Not homoromantics which can be a choice in certain situations, homosexuals. Now let's begin.

It makes no sense for a person to choose to be gay
In Uganda, if you're gay you'll be put in something called "The Rolling Stone" and people will find you and kill you. Cops will literally hunt you down and give you the death penalty.[1] It would be completely insane to choose this life. It would make no sense for a person to want to feel like they might get severely beaten up and killed for stepping out of their house. This happens all over the world and especially after what happened with Matthew Shepard it would be a wonder if anyone even thought about being gay.

Experimentation is not homosexuality
In college many people experiment. Experiment meaning trying to have sex or a relationship with a person that differs from your sexual preferences. Such as a straight woman dating another woman or a gay man dating a woman. Experimenting likely ends up with you returning back to your original orientation, but just the fact that you had sex with a person of the opposite or same sex means it's a choice right? No. Bi-curiosity is when you're curious about relations with a sex you originally thought you weren't interested in. Some people turn out bisexual others revert back. Sexual relations with that person was a choice, but sexuality is not.

Final points
Because my opponent might hold this against me as many do I'm going to clarify this.
Sexual intercourse does not equal sexual orientation. This might confuse you, but having sex with someone once or tice and never again does decide your sexuality.
Sexual intercourse-intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis
This is not a debate on whether lesbian sex is sex or not so let's include cunnilingus.
Sexual orientation-a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted.

Another thing you said "The burden of proof is on the Pro." I strongly hope that you'll provide arguments of your own or we can't have an argument. There is supposed to be proof on both sides that's kind of what a debate is.

Good luck.



"It makes no sense for a person to choose to be gay"

In response to my opponent"s argument about it not making to be gay, this in no way proves the topic true that people don"t choose to be gay. My opponent just makes the claim it doesn"t make sense, and sure let"s say that"s true, however people do indeed do nonsensical things, thus you can turn this argument against my opponent because Pro makes the argument that people who choose to be homosexual would be doing something nonsensical, and it"s true that people do nonsensical things. Therefore choosing to be homosexual.

"Experimentation is not homosexuality"

Cool, nowhere did I bring up experimentation so this argument doesn"t apply.

"Final points"

You can also disregard this for now because I haven"t brought up any argument about sexual intercourse, therefore it doesn"t apply.

Pro doesn"t understand what the Burden of Proof means so I"ll explain. As the Con, all I have to do is prove that you haven"t prove the topic true, if I prove that you don"t meet the criteria, then I win because that would mean you didn"t prove what you were arguing for. However this doesn"t mean I won"t give any arguments, because I will give arguments, like I have already, against your points. This is still a debate. Debate means argue, and I"m providing arguments.

In conclusion, my opponent still has not given any proof that being a homosexual is not a choice. All my opponent has said is that it"s nonsensical which is irrelevant as to whether someone can choose. Pro has also said experiment doesn"t mean homosexuality which is irrelevant because that"s not a reason for why homosexuality is not a choice. And finally Pro said sexual intercourse does not mean homosexuality which also doesn"t prove that homosexuality is not a choice.

My opponent hasn"t given an argument that says "this evidence says homosexuality is not a choice", or something like that.


How can you tell if someone is homosexual?
Debate Round No. 2


In my past arguments I was trying to rebute arguments commonly used against my cause.

"however people do indeed do nonsensical things"
Yes, but not at such a great expense. The APA or some other source would have discovered that all gay people are actually mentally ill people that choose their sexuality and love the rush and thrill of almost being murdered, but it is a fact that the APA does not even consider homosexuality as a mental illness [4] let alone thrill chasers that would just love to be raped for liking a woman.

"How can you tell if someone is homosexual?"
How can you prove anything? Extensive research and testing. You can hook up an EEG to a purposed homosexual's head, show them erotic images of men and women and see how their brain waves react. More activity for men than women would prove a male to be gay, more activity for women than for men would prove female to be gay. Or maybe just do the exact same thing and see if they are sexually aroused with images of the same sex. If yes than you have your answer. Another more logical way is to ask someone "would you ever have sex with a member of the same sex on multiple occasions?" If yes then they are homosexual.

New Arguments
Conversion Therapy is unsuccessful
Conversion therapy is one of the worse things that can happen to a person[1]. It is psychological and sometimes physical torture for the unwilling person and if homosexuality were truly a choice a person going through it would just simply choose to be straight to end the torture except even when people do that they are never truly changed[2]. They pretend to be straight until they can safely be who they are.

Sham Marriages[3]
A sham marriage is when, for the most part, a gay man and lesbian woman get married to appease their families. They do not have sex or kiss. They are similar to friendships. Usually involving both parties having side relationships with members of the same sex. If homosexuality was a choice then these two individuals would just marry each other and be happy without going through all of the trouble and possible jail time/family prosecution/death for being gay.

Why would someone choose a harder life just to have sex with a member of the same sex?




"however people do indeed do nonsensical things"

Let"s begin with my opponent"s argument about how choosing to be homosexual wouldn"t make sense, and therefore homosexuality can not be a choice. I responded with the fact that people do nonsensical things, therefore you can turn this argument against my opponent, however my opponent then says in response that people wouldn"t do something so nonsensical as to choose homosexuality to the point where they risk death, because at this point some source would have labeled homosexuality as a mental illness. I have three responses.

1) You can disregard this argument because let"s say for a second that homosexuality is not a choice, however people are still killed by homophobes for being homosexual, they could have lied, but they didn"t, so by my opponent"s logic, this should be labeled a mental illness in the status quo, but it isn"t, thus making my opponent"s argument illogical due to the fact that they currently aren"t labeled with mental illness after choosing to pronounce their homosexuality as opposed to lie about it and avoid the "almost being murdered" part. Pronouncing your homosexuality is definitely a choice.

2) My opponent assumes that being homosexual means you at a high risk of murder, obviously not true unless you"re specifically talking about some places, which would then mean that for some people it"s not true and for some it is, and for those whom it is true, it would a sensical thing.

3) "The APA or some other source would have discovered that all gay people are actually mentally ill people that choose their sexuality and love the rush and thrill of almost being murdered" Because of the 2nd point I made, the fact where my opponent says (ALL gay people) is not true, thus even if some places had high anti gay murder rates, it wouldn"t be considered a mental illness. A mental illness also isn"t restricted to just some areas, it"s a universal thing encompassed by all homosexuals, if homosexuality was the mental illness.

So to recap, dismiss the argument against my people do nonsensical things as I proved how Pro"s argument doesn"t successfully refute. Extend my argument.

"How can you tell if someone is homosexual?"

Now to response to the answer to my question about how can you tell if someone is homosexual, I contest that not only was this inadequately responded to, but my opponent appears to have contradicted herself. When you look at her answer, my opponent says that the way to tell if someone is homosexual, is by seeing if they would have sex with the same sex, or if they get turned on, however in Pro"s final points last round, Pro states "Sexual intercourse does not equal sexual orientation. ", this contradicts Pro saying to ask if they would have sex with the same sex, and also about sexual arousal. My opponent either has to say their response to my question was wrong, or that the statement "Sexual intercourse does not equal sexual orientation. " is wrong.

"Conversion Therapy is unsuccessful" and "Sham Marriages[3]"

In response to conversion therapy and sham marriages, you can group them together because both are arguments about how it wouldn"t make sense to be homosexual, I have some reminders and one response.

Reminder 1: The burden of proof on the Pro is to prove all homosexuals are so not by choice
Reminder 2: These two argument is similar the nonsensical argument

Response: People do nonsensical things, it"s undeniable, but not only that, you don"t prove that all homosexuals are homosexuals not by choice, at most you only prove these situations you"re coming up with, are not by choice. However you don"t even show how these situations prove homosexuality is not a choice, because of the fact you"re only argument thus far is showing how choosing to be gay is nonsensical, without sufficiently responding to my argument about how people do nonsensical things, thus people choose to be homosexual.

In conclusion

1) Pro"s arguments about it being nonsensical to choose to be gay might be true, but it doesn"t logically follow that it means it"s not a choice.

2) You can vote for me off the fact that I turned one of Pro"s arguments against her, which would be a reason to vote for me since it proves my point.

3) All her arguments are contingent on the false premise that people can"t choose to do nonsensical things.
Debate Round No. 3


"The line between bravery and stupidity is so thin that you don't know you crossed it until you're dead."-Unknown. This is true in this case as well. Using the Uganda example, a gay person would come out and face the consequences out of bravery. They wish for a better future so they march, so they rebel the same way black people did for their rights. See the difference between them and a "fake homosexual" let's call them, is that they don't have a cause. They are doing it for the better of humanity or themselves they are doing it for who know why. Maybe thrill. It's not my position to explain because you're the one who believes it.

True, I apologize for not clarifying. I was speaking of the Uganda example again. In other places such as the US, you might just get treated differently. People don't want to leave their children around you, you are called homophobic slur now the vice president wishes to implant conversion therapy camps. Maybe it will get worse there.

Except there still would be an abnormality noticed when examining gay people such as a tendency to do more dangerous activities or having the urge to be harmed or killed. It is true that homosexuals are more prone to depression and anxiety, but those are environmental influences, being disowned by their families, being bullied or discriminated, but if all gay people had Stockholm's syndrome, ASPD, were all masochists or just a completely different mental illness all together, someone would have figured it out by now.

Now to your rebuttal of my response of your question
Notice my use of the term "on multiple occasions?" Multiple occasions not just the one time and realize that you don't like it. Chances are if you have sex with a member of the same sex more than once then you are gay or at least bi. It is also true that a heterosexual who would have sex with someone of the same sex would not get immediately aroused. They would need some sort of stimulation. I don't want to get into the nitty gritty for fear that it will be blocked, but let's just say stroking is involved. It's more physical then it is mental.

New Arguments
Significant evidence of a gay gene
Though it is correct that there is no solid evidence of a gay gene YET, there are many studies that show that there is a good chance that there is one. The study in Diversity in Human Sexuality has related male homosexuality to a specific region of the X chromosome[2]. In the future I am hopeful they will do the same for females, but most research is targeted for males. There is also evidence that it happens in the womb meaning it could not possibly be a choice unless you think fetuses choose to be gay[2].

Homosexuality is present in the subconscious
If a person were to choose to be gay they would only feel that in their conscious mind. They would choose to want to hold a member of the same sex's hand or kiss them, but the subconscious activity would not be present. You do not choose what's in your subconscious, it controls you in a sense. That's what creates the feelings of longing when they are gone and feelings of love in which oxytocin is released[1].

Chromosome Xq28
This is a "gay gene". I use quotes because it is not set in stone, but their is proof that it does have a significant influence in male homosexuality[3]. It is present in about 90% of homosexual brothers.

1)There is significant evidence that there is a gay gene meaning gay people do not choose their sexual orientation.
2)ALL gay people can't be illogical and make the decision to be gay, the ones that do are not gay they are straight.
3)Significant evidence has yet to be found that homosexuality is a choice.




In response to my (1) argument my opponent says that in the status quo homosexuality wouldn"t count as a mental illness because the line between bravery and stupidity is so thin, however this is not an adequate response because my opponent makes this warrantless claim solely by giving a quote and an example of Uganda, however my opponent commits the fallacy of using some example and generalizing it to encompass all gay people, but this is logically unsound. Not every homosexual is stating they"re a homosexual for bravery and nowhere do you show evidence that they are. My opponent just gives on cherry picked example of where they do, but doesn"t make it so that all homosexuals have a cause. Thus in conclusion you can extend my argument about how in the status quo homosexuals aren"t labeled as people with mental illnesses, however by my opponent"s logic it should, but since it doesn't it has failed.


In response to my (2) ,this gets conceded, therefore extend the implications of it.


In response to my (3) argument, my opponent gives the argument that if a homosexual had a mental illness and that someone would have figured it out by now. This is not a logical refutation, one can not say that something doesn"t exist purely because it has been proven yet. Something exists independent of whether someone discovers it or not, and one can not just assume that having enough evidence to say homosexuality is a mental illness is just as easy as finding out other illnesses.

"Homosexuality is present in the subconscious"

My opponent"s argument for this doesn"t show necessary things that it has to show in order to make this claim. First, their evidence only says if someone were to choose to be gay, then they would choose to want a hold someone of the same sex or kiss someone but someone doesn"t, however where in the evidence that my opponent brings up does it show that we don"t choose to want things? In fact there is evidence to the contrary, let"s say I want to want Puerto Rico, and then I go to Puerto Rico to go see the best attractions and in the end I end up liking Puerto Rico, I just chose to want Puerto Rico.

"New Arguments
Significant evidence of a gay gene"

In response to my opponent's argument about there being significant evidence of the gay gene, just look directly under their evidence and it literally says there is NO solid evidence of a gay gene yet. You can dismiss my opponent's argument right there, but even if you don't buy that then let's keep going. There is NO methodology or internal warrant as to how they show male homosexuality and a region of the X chromosome is related, also related does not mean causation. My opponent has to prove that homosexuality is caused by this chromosome, not just that they are related because the word related is so vague it could mean anything. Disregard this argument made by my opponent.

"Chromosome Xq28"

My opponent concedes their self that there is no set in stone proof of this gay gene, at most my opponent shows that there are some studies that hint at it, but yet it still hasn't been proven. Second, this gay gene doesn't mean it isn't a choice, in the evidence it literally says it may (influence) male homosexuality, which would mean there is still room for choice. Then you can turn this argument against my opponent because of the fact that the evidence literally says it's only in 90% of homosexual brothers, 1) this is a small sample pool because it only accounts for brothers, 2) this would mean that the rest of the brothers ARE homosexual WITHOUT the gay gene. Therefore not inherent in those without the gay gene, and thus still up to choice.

In conclusion you can extend the turn I made on my opponent"s first argument about people doing nonsensical things, then I'm also winning off the turn I made on the chromosome argument. The third point I'm winning off of is that my opponent has yet to prove their burden of gay not being a choice.
Debate Round No. 4


In response to your first argument.
Your first argument stated "where they risk death" and " however people are still killed by homophobes for being homosexual, they could have lied, but they didn"t". This is what I was rebutting. In these cases where their lives are at stake they care trying to be an example[4]. Trying to prove to others that they are proud to be what they are and that they cannot take that away from them. If these people are insane then so is Malcolm X, MLK, Malala and all these other people who stand up for their rights and what they believe in. Obviously this is not the case for most people in our safe western society, but I was rebutting your point in which immediate death was in place.

For your response to my third argument, that was itself not a response. For most of my debate I have used psychological examples and scientifically proven responses. What you just said cannot be more wrong. Even if you're against today's "Liberal Scientists" then you can still take into account all of the backwards scientists trying their hardest to try to make homosexuality look like a mental illness, not even they have found a sliver of a clue that homosexuality makes you more risk taking or masochistic. When we don't even have a grade 9 hypothesis on the matter, I feel it is safe to assume it doesn't exist.

"First, their evidence only says if someone were to choose to be gay, then they would choose to want a hold someone of the same sex or kiss someone but someone doesn"t,"
I made the mistake of believing you were on my knowledge level of the human brain. I apologize. The things stated in the source were examples of subconscious behaviour. Things you do not choose, but it chooses for you[1]. A heterosexual person would not exhibit these feelings for the same sex and vice versa.

For your Puerto Rico example though that is not even closely to how predetermined sexual orientation works let's just use this example. Your brain hardwires everything for you by the age of seven[2]. Though this particular region of Puerto Rico was possibly decided before you were born[3]. If you're brain was hardwired to hate it there you cannot go there and like it without lying to yourself, if you're brain was hardwired to like it there then if you go there and originally think you're going to hate it and like it that's because your brain says so. See the thing about it is that people can choose to have homosexual sex, but one cannot choose to be homosexual. If one is a heterosexual person they cannot simply make the switch to homosexual without being homosexual.

"NO solid evidence of a gay gene yet."
I never said there was a gay gene I said there was significant evidence there was one. In science until we can define something as fact sometimes significant evidence and all of the unconnecting puzzle pieces is the best you can get.

"not just that they are related because the word related is so vague it could mean anything. "
Vague evidence is far better than none at all. Whereas with the scientists trying to find a relation with Chromosome Xq28 there is no evidence on your side that it is a choice. See vagueness and "might, maybe, possibly"s are a lot better than nothing-at-alls. This can also be used against my opponent because of his earlier argument "one can not say that something doesn"t exist purely because it has been proven yet." This has not yet been proven, but it still has significant evidence for it. Can you say it does not exist simply because it has not been proven yet?

To you response on Xq28, I see your concerns the fact is we're not done yet. We still have a lot more research to do in the female department and we still have to solidify and get rid of any loose ends. Though we still have more evidence than con's party does, nothing is set in stone. If you're against the possiblies and maybes we can have this debate again in 10 years and I'll have more solid answers.

In conclusion, my opponent is wrong by default because anyone who "chooses" to be gay was already gay by default.
There is not non-outdated evidence to support con's side except the testimonies of a Sex In the City actress which can be concluded to be bisexual and the Vatican[5]. I thank con for a challenging and interesting debate and hope voters to vote for pro because of scientific evidence and legitimate sources.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SJM 2 years ago
@CosmoJarvis Let Pro debate and then after we can debate.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 2 years ago
Pro, I recommend that you include sightings of homosexuality in other species to discuss how homosexuality is more of an instinct, than a conscious action against a deity or society.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 2 years ago
Homosexuality is not just seen in humans. Virtually any sort of species has had homosexual animals. No, these animals did not consciously think "I'm going to be homosexual to go against God's wishes." Hell, they don't even possess the brain capacity to consider the concept of God. They simply do it out of instinct; because it is in their nature.
Posted by HalfAnOnion 2 years ago
Why would a homosexual choose to go through all of the crap, and possible violence they get. if they could choose to be gay or straight why not just choose to be straight? When did you decide to be straight? why dont you decide to be gay for a day>
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.