The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is being gay a choice?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,110 times Debate No: 99251
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




I bring this up because despite being 2017, whether or not being gay is a choice is still a big issue in politics. "Obergefell was wrong, and many gay people actually choose to be gay. "[0]

Burden of proof will be equally shared.


Gay " Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." [1]

Choice "1. The act of choosing; selection: It is time to make a choice between the candidates." [2]

For all other definitions common definitions will be assumed unless otherwise contended for and agreed upon.

R1 acceptance and definitions.
R2 arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument yet.
R3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two argument.
R4 Defense, respond directly to opponent's round three argument.



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Round two arguments

Science proves that being gay is not a choice. That gay conversation therapy does not work.

"Most scientists would disagree. Years of research suggest that people can't change their sexual orientation because they want to, and that trying can cause mental anguish. What's more, some studies suggest that being gay may have a genetic or biological basis." [0]

"Gay Therapy

Gay conversion therapy, as it is known, supposedly helps gay people overcome same-sex attractions. But mainstream psychologists say the therapy is ineffective, unethical and often harmful, exacerbating anxiety and self-hatred among those treated for what is not a mental disorder." [1]



Is being gay a choice? An interesting question that I believe deserves proper examination. Never mind what some wish to hear or what some say "may" be scientific. A rhetoric not unfamiliar to most. Boasting of scientific examination upon a subject only to conclude the ultimate fact "we don't know," in the political sphere this is no good and it changes from "we don't know," to "It May be true".

I am reminded of the great nature vs nurture debate. Never mind the fact that in LGBT discourse the grand idea of saying we are doing nothing wrong because it is our nature. A simple solution to the Christian discourse of hating the sin, but loving the sinner. Unfortunately I cannot properly answer the question with an ultimate fact; merely presume a standpoint from available facts. Personally I think it is a bit of both nature and nurture.

In Humphrey's Tearoom trade, great study done leaving behind an ethical conundrum. The validity of that study I believe is not in question on the ethical dilemma of deceit and consent. Basically Humphrey's wanted to know where a guy goes for same-sex. He concluded in public restrooms most of the men were married and had decent life styles. What does this tell us? That they were bisexual? An easy answer. It takes away the buildup of how did we get here. Why are married happy men having same sex in public restrooms? And why now? If you allow for bisexuality then you allow for the answer yes being gay can be a choice.

I too like the Greeks think I am cosmopolitan i.e. It's fine to do what you want anyone can be with anyone, or as they say it doesn't matter the gender but their is a beauty of the body. Of course you would be tempted to shout down or perhaps up and say those guys were just gay or were in the closet. They were relatively happy dudes with wives and sometimes children. It is much more difficult to accept that something is gray than to live your life with the bliss of categorizing everything compartmentalizing them, and painting them in black or white for future reference.

Is being gay a choice? Yes, it can be a choice. Some are reminded of their "college days". Who hasn't heard the story of females experimenting with their roommates, or of frat parties?

Furthermore scientists also suggest that alcoholism and obesity have a genetic component. it is not only their genes that determine who they are it is their behaviour. So if we extend this line of reasoning for something to have a genetic component it is not only their genes a second factor must come in i.e. Behaviour. In my case that certainly seems true enough to me. I did not suddenly one day after puberty wake up and say well I like guys now.

The subtlety of the argument my opponent makes without voicing it a shame I believe. If being gay is a choice then we can choose to be straight and that has failed; it takes the form of gay conversion therapy. My position is not being gay is absolutely a choice. Further the question at hand fails to examine why people went to or are attempting to find sexual attraction in the opposite sex. And it begs the question why they want to are they not happy being gay? Is this the position that my opponent wishes to take: Being gay is a major cause for unhappiness, but they are stuck? I am more than positive I can find persons who were "converted" by this therapy, and I can also find people who weren't. Why is this? Because humans are much more complicated creatures than you may wish to imagine.
Debate Round No. 2


Rebuttals round three

My opponent has a lot of red herrings, but tucked away in there is gay conversion therapy. The problem is my opponent relies upon anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is weak evidence.

"Anecdotes are extremely weak support of a theory; even if the event itself has been verified, its occurrence may be inappropriately attributed to an unusual therapy, and other unrecognised factors (confounders) may have invalidated the initial prediction of demise. Multiple similar anecdotes do not significantly increase support and at best serve justify a scientific experiment to empirically test the theory." [0]

The people who claim that the conversion worked, may not have been gay to begin with.



I extend my arguments as it was not explained what a red herring is nor why my arguments are such.

I agree anecdotes are not sufficient evidence. Nevertheless they are evidence. Furthermore Psychiatrists had homosexuality as a mental disease it was only until 1987 that it was removed from the DSM, and removed only because of pressures from gay activists. It was thought to have been removed earlier, but was merely placed in parentheses. The DSM hailed the methods used to turn homosexuality into heterosexuality to those that wish to. It's fine if you want to ignore persons with a sweeping statement. Eh they just weren't gay. If that works to keep your world view it's fine.
Debate Round No. 3


Round four defense

My opponent has violated the round structure giving me no choice but to pass the round.

"R3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two argument." stupidape

My opponent responded to my round three rebuttal in lieu of my round two argument.

"I extend my arguments as it was not explained what a red herring is nor why my arguments are such." headphonegut

I only mentioned red herring in my round three rebuttal.


Fair enough but there was nothing to respond to. I inclined to you is all. There was no mention of losing the devate if violating the structure. I am left eith either not responding to anything since no argument was made or responding to a small point. I chose the latter.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by ThatRandomGuy777 2 years ago
Being gay is a choice, just like being strait is a choice. You're not born gay. You can't reproduce being gay. If being gay was natural, then everyone would be gay, and no one would reproduce.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: ChadIrvin// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Conduct, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con since he followed the rules regarding the round structure and how the debate would flow. Sources also goes to con because he used sources, while pro used none.

[*Reason for removal*] While conduct is sufficiently explained, sources are not. Merely comparing numbers of sources is never sufficient reason for awarding them to one side. Even if only one side used sources, the voter is still required to explain how those sources were reliable (i.e. relevant to the debate).
Posted by Stupidape 2 years ago
Thanks for voting.
Posted by sboss18 2 years ago
I agree with Con that it's not a choice, but...
"...despite being 2017, whether or not being gay is a choice is still a big issue in politics." chronological snobbery.
Posted by mmilankow 2 years ago
NO being gay is NOT a choice!... Is being straight a choice? Let us NOT forget that the bible was written by people. It was also re-written by many people over the years. If you cannot take a straight person and turn them gay, how can you take a gay person and make them straight???!!!!
Posted by Stupidape 2 years ago
We don't get to pick which country we are born in.
Posted by jo154676 2 years ago
Do you define the milieu the child grows up in as a "choice" as it is not biological?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for breaking the agreed upon structure... However otherwise this debate fell flat. Con relied on sources, without properly building a case upon their foundation (generally, your own words should be greater than the quotations), and pro built a case around the sometimes it is sometimes it isn't standpoint; which while having much merit, was half arguing against the resolution he was supposed to be supporting.