The Instigator
JamesCroft
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
missmedic
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

HOMOSEXUALITY is 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 1 vote the winner is...
JamesCroft
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,643 times Debate No: 103159
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

JamesCroft

Pro

A common position held by many LGBT activists in order to justify the radical behavior of Homosexuals is the argument that "they can't help it...They're BORN this way." I find this statement dangerous not only because it's a lie but also because it removes all hope of a better life from a person struggling with homosexual behavior. Considering the average life expectancy of Homosexuals has consistently been significantly lower than heterosexuals[1] And has significantly elevated health risks[2] Why would this be a lifestyle choice we'd want to ever encourage?

[1]
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com...

[2]
http://glma.org...

Rules:
Both Pro and Con must stay on the points they are advocating for:
[PRO] I am advocating that Homosexuality is a choice and not something you are born with
[CON] Will argue Homosexuality is something you are born with and is not a choice

Both Pro and Con must put citations to all claims they make.
Thank you and happy debating!
missmedic

Con

I accept this debate. I will be arguing the proposition "homosexuality is not a choice".
Debate Round No. 1
JamesCroft

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate

Are homosexuals born this way? Absolutely not. There have been many studies using Identical Monozygotic twins (Monozygotic twins share 100% of their DNA) Where they see how often both Identical twins are homosexuals. The idea is that if there is a "gay gene" Both have it and both should be Gay. In one study by Peter S. Bearman of
Columbia University and Hannah Bruckner of Yale University they investigated the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. What they found is that this happens less than 7% of the time[1] In the remaining 93% of the sample 1 identical twin was gay but the other was not .

In another study conducted by Cornell University found that more than 70% percent of teens who said they had ever had a same-sex "romantic attraction" later told researchers that they were now exclusively heterosexual[2].

In another study Christopher Hensley an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga questioned 142 prisoners at a maximum-security facility in the South about their sexual orientation. They found that of the sample, 24 men changed sexual orientation while incarcerated.
Inmates were also more than 52 times more likely to change their sexual orientation if they engaged in homosexual activity while incarcerated, supporting the social constructionist approach[3]

This is just 3 examples showing that homosexuals are not born that way. I could right a statement but I figured it would work better if I just let the homosexuals tell you in they're own words.

Lindsay Miller (openly lesbian) wrote an article in the Atlantic[4] where she expressed that she made the choice to be gay "I get frustrated with the veiled condescension of straight people who believe that gays can't help it, and thus should be treated with tolerance and pity. In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way."

In another article published in the BBC[5] titled "I'm gay but I wasn't born this way" a Homosexual man named Brandon Ambrosino said "People who challenge the Born This Way narrative are often cast as homophobic, and their thinking is considered backward even if they are themselves gay. I'm gay but make no mistake I wasn't born this way"

From all of this I can draw only one conclusion. Homosexual behavior is a choice.

Sources:
[1]
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org...

[2]
https://www.lifesitenews.com...

[3]
http://journals.sagepub.com...

[4]
https://www.theatlantic.com...

[5]
http://www.bbc.com...
missmedic

Con

Ask yourself this "when did you choose to be straight"?
A person's sexual orientation is not a black or white matter, sexual orientation exists along a continuum, with exclusive attraction to the opposite sex on one end of the continuum and exclusive attraction to the same sex on the other.
There is a great deal of research suggesting that sexual orientation is congenital. Common sense tells us that no one sits down one day and goes, "Hmmmm" should I be gay or straight?" but rather some people find themselves attracted to people of the same gender. But there are people who consciously decide to experiment with their sexuality, to try gay sex and see if they like it. Some radical feminists embrace lesbianism for political rather than sexual reasons. As some men in prison with strong sexual desire use other men for sex. This can cause some people to believe that homosexual behavior is the same thing as homosexual attraction. What if behavior doesn't match well with attraction? What if people usually enjoy sex with one gender but only fall in love with the other? What if a person's past doesn't reflect his or her present feelings? Sexuality is much more complex than we know, but we are gaining understanding through science.

So the real question should be what causes homosexuality? Research suggest that homosexuality is hereditary.

https://www.eurekalert.org...
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.pnas.org...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

However in spite of all of the above scientific studies, according to the American Psychological Association's own website, "there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; however most people whether heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

From all of this I can draw only one conclusion. Homosexuality is not a choice.
Debate Round No. 2
JamesCroft

Pro

You say research shows Homosexuality is hereditary and that your sources prove this? I'm assuming you never bothered to read your sources before you posted them because not 1 of the 10 sources you site provides any evidence that Homosexuality is genetic. Why? Because they aren't scientific studies. They're theories made up by "born that way" activists. The only honest statement you made was when you quoted the American Psychological Association saying "no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor."[1] That's scientific and it supports my side. In the words of homosexual Milo Yiannopoulos "certainly In my experience homosexuality is more nurture not nature" [5]

Considering this is my ending statement here's what I'd like you to consider:
It is a fact that Homosexuals have elevated health risks in everything from cancers to STDS[2] (some of which unpreventable and lethal) It is also a fact that Homosexuals are statistically more violent than heterosexuals[3] Heck they can't even naturally start a family!

The point I'm making is that the Homosexual lifestyle is not a fun one. In fact it's a dangerous one that will cut your life short on average by 8-21 years![4] If your born this way you have no hope. Your chances of a better life ended on day 1. This is why it has been my goal in this debate to show that you can make a choice. A choice that will benefit you greatly. In the words of Milo Yiannopoulos (Gay) "I would choose not to be gay if I could, and everyone should!"[5] The good news is that you can choose. So It's up to you now so choose wisely.

Thank you very much for debating me and good luck!

[1]
http://www.apa.org...

[2]
http://glma.org...

[3]
https://www.cdc.gov...

[4]
https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com...

[5]
https://www.youtube.com...
missmedic

Con

Your sexual behaviour is a choice, but not our sexuality. Your sexual behaviour can cause harm , but not your sexuality. All a person needs to do is look to themselves and ask yourself; was your own sexuality a choice, no, no one's is.
After 1973
Every major mental health organization in the United States has affirmed strongly that homosexuality is neither an illness nor a choice and cannot be changed, and is caused by a complex mix of biological factors whether because of genetics or events happening in the womb (nature) and cultural, social and other environmental factors which are the total sum of the experiences of a child or adolescent and their effect on him or her (nurture). This is the stance of:
The American Medical Association
The American Psychiatric Association
The American Psychological Association
The American Psychoanalytic Association
The American Academy of Pediatrics
The National Association of Social Workers
The American Counseling Association
The American Association of School Administrators
The American Federation of Teachers
The National Association of School Psychologists
The National Education Association
And me
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 6 months ago
missmedic
have a look
https://omgfacts.com...
Posted by TheTrueBeliever 6 months ago
TheTrueBeliever
I'm interested but frustrated with this whole debate. How is it even possible to demonstrate to others that "homosexuality is not a choice"?? It is not even possible to demonstrate. It would be synonymous with stating "I can read their minds and have determined that it was not their choice." If you demonstrate that it IS a choice, even 1 time (In the case of twins who share the same DNA), then we know for a fact at least in SOME cases it is not a choice. There are 0 such examples that can be given to the contrary.
But then again, this is all semantics. What does "homosexuality" even mean? To be attracted to the same sex? To have sex with the same sex? Obviously people can choose not to have sex. There are millions of examples of celibacy, so clearly by that definition it is a choice.
All of this is moot however. How does answering this question pertain to anything? I think it has been determined that people with violent tendencies are genetically predisposed to be so. People who are alcoholics have a genetic predisposition. People who are lazy may be genetically predisposed to being so. People who are bullies may predisposed to being so. Who cares? It is a non-sequitur to argue "therefore it is equal to...." anything. "If bullies can't help it, then it is equal to people who are nice". "If alcoholics can't help it, then it is equal to those who live healthy".
This entire line of argumentation is the lamest form of reasoning I have ever heard. It is embarrassing to live in a culture and a time that is influenced by such simpleton arguments. The LGBTQ movement is a hideous wart on the "body" that is reason.
Posted by onlytwin 1 year ago
onlytwin
You think I care? Both of you lost this debate. Think before you post
Posted by onlytwin 1 year ago
onlytwin
You think I care? Both of you lost this debate. Think before you post
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
onlytwiny: making such comments in the middle of the debate is a dick move
Posted by onlytwin 1 year ago
onlytwin
JamesCroft: your papers arent even scientific. They literally have 0 quantification to them theyre garbage from the start. You site a sociology paper that literally doesnt have a methods section. Thats 100% invalid to the scientific community. You CANNOT exclude a methods section. The way it discusses each section is laughable, it only talks about hormones affecting sexuality in terms of prenatal endocrinology (while shows 0 evidence of what theyre talking about)? This paper means nothing and belongs in the garbage.

Then you site a news article lmao. I dont even have to go into detail about why that is utter sh*t.

Missmedic: At least you have the brains to go to a scientific journal thats mildly credible but yet you dont seem to understand the validity of these papers and because of that you cannot understand what the data they present means. First is another sociology paper, literally nothing quantifiable is discussed so toss that one. Second is a news article; garbage. Third, another news article; garbage and only focuses on genetics so DOUBLE garbage. THIS paper http://www.journals.uchicago.edu.sci-hub.cc... isnt actually a study, its a review of many papers and basically a scientific news article which you cant use in an arguement unless youve read all of the papers cited that are relevant. THIS paper http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.ololo.sci-hub.cc... just says "well theres a trend that says if you have brothers who are older than you, than youre probably gay" and is nothing quantitative.

ALL of these papers are garbage. Stop citing papers you just google and dont read that you THINK support your opinion. NONE of these are evidence of your opinions. In fact, ALL of these are just more opinions. You couldve cited a similar debate from this website and effectively done the same thing.
Posted by onlytwin 1 year ago
onlytwin
Holy sh*t. Dont spam studies that you dont READ *AND UNDERSTAND*. Both of you are citing incredibly sh*t studies especially missmedic. There arent relevant validated methods discussed in ANY of these articles. These are clearly not GMP or GLP compliant and if the FDA reviewed these papers theyd be thrown in the garbage.
Posted by RandomTruth 1 year ago
RandomTruth
From my personal experience, not ever having any homosexual thoughts or desires, I suspect that the only people that believe it is a choice are those that "decide" to be straight. Probably having had to struggle in their early years growing up in a homophobic upbringing. Typically those that argue most against homosexuality are often gay or gay-curious anyway.

For the rest of us fully straight men, or fully gay men, and all in between - there's really no choice in personal preferences. Just my two cents.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
The intellectually honest answer is no ones knows, yet. This is more of a exercise in homophobia. Typical of young Christian males.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
https://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://elitedaily.com...
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
If you change the resolution to
Homosexuality In Humans Is Not Genetic,
I would take Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by philochristos 1 year ago
philochristos
JamesCroftmissmedicTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution for this debate required each debator to establish two distinct positions: (1) Whether homosexuality is a choice, and (2) Whether homosexuality is something one is born with. Regarding 2, Pro says no, and Con appears to either agree or to say, "We don't know." So Pro wins on that point. Regarding (1) Pro gave good evidence that at least in some cases, homosexuality is a choice. But Con also gave good evidence that at least in some cases, homosexuality is not a choice. Since the resolution makes the sweeping statement that either homosexuality is a choice or homosexuality is not a choice, neither Pro nor Con established that point. Reading the case from both sides, and not taking into account anything outside of this debate, I would have to conclude that sometimes it's a choice and sometimes it's not. That is not sufficient to give either debater the win on 1. Arguments to Pro because Pro at least won on 2.