Does one choose their sexuality?

Posted by: Jackrabbitjones

This was a debate that riled the entire class today, taking into account that I attend a Catholic school which is why we were divided. Let me know what you think...

  • Yes, it is a choice.

  • No, it is not.

28% 7 votes
72% 18 votes
  • You chose who you have sex with., you have no excuses for your actions.

  • One ALWAYS chooses their sexuality! It's as simple as that!

  • Unless you have sex willy-nilly, you are choosing whom you have sex with, thereby choosing what you want to be called by society: Heterosexual or Homosexual.

  • It's a choice because you can change your sexuality through therapy.

  • Wow I see no one who has commented thus far has had neither sex ed nor biology...NO you do not choose to be Gay you morons.

    Posted by: maslow
  • Sexuality is not having sex with people, it's who you're ATTRACTED to. You don't choose who you're attracted to. Did you decide, 'hey, I like the opposite sex!'? No. Because it's not a choice for anything. If you still don't understand, ask yourself this: Why would anyone choose to be scared, ridiculed, and even killed? Because it's not a choice.

    Posted by: xPengy
  • Even if it isn't entirely decided by genetics, it is not by choice. You can choose to have sex with certain people and not others, but your actual attraction is mostly out of your control.

  • HOW THE HELL CAN YOU "CHOOSE"????

  • I believe your gender is based in your biology, not by your personal choices.

  • doesnt matter what i choose, my body does the choosing for me.

    Posted by: Hoey
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
David_Debates says2016-06-27T19:46:42.4118032Z
There is not one piece of evidence that proves homosexuality is determined at conception. In other words, there is no such thing as "the gay gene." It's a choice made by the individual, not his DNA.
maslow says2016-06-27T19:49:09.1511965Z
No studies have found specific "gay genes" that reliably make someone gay. But some genes may make being gay likelier. For instance, a 2014 study in the journal Psychological Medicine showed that a gene on the X chromosome (one of the sex chromosomes) called Xq28 and a gene on chromosome 8 seem to be found in higher prevalence in men who are gay. That study, involving more than 400 pairs of gay brothers, followed the 1993 report by geneticist Dean Hamer suggesting the existence of a "gay gene." Other research has found that being gay or lesbian tends to run in families. It's also more likely for two identical twins, who share all of their genes, to both be gay than it is for two fraternal twins, who share just half of their genes, to both be homosexual. Those studies also suggest that genes seemed to have a greater influence on the sexual orientation of male versus female identical twins.
David_Debates says2016-06-27T20:15:12.6133252Z
As counter-evidence: http://www.Onenewsnow.Com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2014/06/17/the-latest-in-scientific-research-there-is-no-gay-gene Also, the American Psychiatric Association stated the following just last year: "No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse." You say that there are some genes that MAY make you gay. You must show how they DO make you gay. If you can't, then your point is disproved.
TheWorldIsComplicated says2016-06-27T20:18:08.1790387Z
I'm living proof that there is a gay gene. I never chose, to be anything. It is engraved in me and always has been there. So please don't act like God knows me better than myself/
SJM says2016-06-27T20:36:39.5132101Z
An essential question is, what is gay if gay isn't gay?
TheWorldIsComplicated says2016-06-27T21:22:40.6168824Z
Not gay? You're hurting my brain!
David_Debates says2016-06-27T22:02:37.3226458Z
Something can't just happen to be, you need to bring certifiable proof. You're testimony doesn't show the "gay gene," it instead shows a person who chose to be homosexual. You are living proof that there are homosexuals, not that there is a "gay gene."
Kreakin says2016-06-27T22:05:58.4970655Z
I always though i was straight, can I just choose to fancy men then??? Wow wonder why I needed you to tell me and I've never noticed myself.....I'm choosing to be gay now, if I don't fancy men tomorrow I'll call BS on you!
David_Debates says2016-06-27T22:08:45.4070053Z
Yes, you can. Don't see why you would, though. Maybe just to prove me wrong?
Kreakin says2016-06-27T22:10:05.3718130Z
So many fish in the sea. Never been attracted to men before but if you say I can then I'll see.
TheWorldIsComplicated says2016-06-27T22:57:48.7714729Z
David you seem like you think you know me more than myself! Let me twist your question, can you prove that you are right?
David_Debates says2016-06-27T23:26:05.2823479Z
See my above sources. After careful search for the alleged "gay gene," none could be found. That seems to be undeniable proof for my side. You must bring a gene that shows that no matter what, a man is conceived gay or straight, leaving nothing up to the person him/herself. It is all dictated by genetics, and not by choice. I have given reliable, current, and published sources indicating the exact opposite. By the way, you are making the statement that people are gay by genetics, I am negating, thereby giving the burden to you. I ask you, why is it not a choice to be gay?
TheWorldIsComplicated says2016-06-28T00:03:45.5733682Z
Science can prove a lot of things, it also can't prove some things. No one would choose to be gay if it was a choice, we have to deal with constant hate and discrimination. One does not simply choose that, your personality is determined at birth so certainly your sexuality would be too. That's seems to make sense. It is a choice for the same reason being black or white isn't a choice
David_Debates says2016-06-28T00:10:23.8201897Z
We are talking about genes, not whether or not something "just makes sense." In the realm of genetics, scientific support is needed. You compare it to being black or white, but there are clear, scientifically proven genes that command skin color. However, the contrast is that there aren't clear, scientifically proven genes that command sexuality. Don't avoid the question: what biological, genetic evidence can you bring that certifies your statement, that sexuality is determined at conception?
TheWorldIsComplicated says2016-06-28T00:23:07.5230852Z
There is little evidence on either side, but whether you believe me or not I'm proof that I never chose to be gay thus I conclude it must be in my genes but that doesn't matter either way. Often why are identically twins both gay? They share 99.9% of their DNA and the chancesof them both being gay is 30% whereas for a regular person it is around 10%. See the link between it.
David_Debates says2016-06-28T00:57:48.7948266Z
Then, by your logic, we should see approximately 10% of the population is homosexual. However, the facts state the opposite. "In the first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual orientation, the NHIS reported in July 2014 that 1.6 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent identify as bisexual." That's according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is not in any way indicative of your speculative conclusion. Don't avoid the question: give me biological, genetic evidence that certifies your statement, that sexuality is determined at conception. Not at birth, but at conception, when DNA is formed.
maslow says2016-06-28T03:36:02.3874371Z
DavidDebates you are a homophobic prick
maslow says2016-06-28T03:38:05.8003224Z
I’m not sure how these guys think homosexuality works or how you end up being gay, but one thing I can confirm is that it’s not my decision. I can’t go around dictating people’s sexual orientations because I’ve got some knowledge of mental and neurological processes. That would be classed as a very sinister superpower. Besides, even if I did think they were gay, it’s certainly not something I’m going to bring up when first meeting someone, given how it’s a) irrelevant, and b) none of my damn business. Others don’t feel the same though. Homosexual members of society can unfortunately expect to regularly be challenged, scrutinised and condemned by belligerent type who are seemingly convinced that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice”.
SJM says2016-06-28T04:03:25.7673231Z
I'm not picking sides here, but I want to talk about this foolish quote, "I can’t go around dictating people’s sexual orientations because I’ve got some knowledge of mental and neurological processes. That would be classed as a very sinister superpower." David is not dictating anyone's sexual orientation, what he is simply saying is that if something hasn't been proven to exist, then don't say it does. There is nothing sinister about telling someone that something is there's no evidence that such a thing is possible. Again I'm not picking sides. Plus someone's sexual orientation is not what he is dictating, if you say he is dictating, he's talking about whether they are genetically made with this sexual orientation. And how is this in any way homophobic, that he is saying there is no way for someone to be conceived gay? This is a possible fact, not an insulting opinion which would then be classified as homophobic. What I mean by possible fact is that it could be a fact, but something like someone is ugly can not possibly be a fact.
David_Debates says2016-06-28T06:11:39.5830271Z
Thank you, SJM. You summed up my points quite clearly. Also, I don't see myself as "homophobic," I am simply asking a question that pertains to homosexuality. Based on the evidence I have gathered, I find that sexuality is not determined at conception, thereby making it a choice. You concede to this point, actually. "I can’t go around dictating people’s sexual orientations because I’ve got some knowledge of mental and neurological processes." If it truly was not a choice (as you state you believe), you should be able to determine with scientific certainty a person's sexual orientation by examining his DNA.
Kreakin says2016-06-28T09:53:51.8204625Z
The likely case is that genetics cause a predisposition that is environmentally triggered. There is no gay gene per se. This is along way from saying you can choose your sexuality however, that is a very simple approach to a complex question. During the developmental phases children pass through we all from about the age of five to our teen years generally formed strong friendships with members of our own sex. I certainly remember avoiding girls at this age, yuck. As our hormones kick in we mostly break away from this to find a female as we approach reproductive capacity, some people however find this attachment does not break. They are left wondering why friends are now no longer exclusively interested in them. To quote Desmond Morris ""It takes a massive jolt from the sex hormones at puberty to break down the boy-to-boy loyalties, and if there are any special social factors adding their weight at this point, the break can be thwarted," The findings suggest homosexuality has a biological basis but might not be hard-wired into the genes. That said, a team in America revealed they have found a 'genderblind' gene that can be manipulated to make flies bisexual. When they deactivated the gene they found male flies courting other males and even attempt sex. Nothing is resolved yet, but it shows that saying sexuality is a choice exposes a wild naivety of the true complexity involved.
TheWorldIsComplicated says2016-06-28T13:21:33.3531824Z
David you're ignoring some pretty convincing evidence that if a twin is gay his other twin is 30% more likely to be gay. Obviously genetic proof.
David_Debates says2016-06-28T16:51:02.9117429Z
If there is no "gay gene," then sexuality is not determined at conception, let alone at birth. There is no way to show that your theory is correct, as it relies upon something that you do not know. "During the developmental phases children pass through we all from about the age of five to our teen years generally formed strong friendships with members of our own sex. I certainly remember avoiding girls at this age, yuck. As our hormones kick in we mostly break away from this to find a female as we approach reproductive capacity, some people however find this attachment does not break. They are left wondering why friends are now no longer exclusively interested in them." This statement is incredibly speculative and has no proof to fall back on. Also, humans are not even comparable to flies. The two species are so vastly different, that comparing them proves or shows nothing. Also, I am indeed ignoring your "evidence" that a twin is 30% more likely to be gay if the other is gay, as there is plenty of evidence stating otherwise: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/06/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/ Recommend you both read this article if you still think homosexuality is determined at contraception (when DNA is created).
TheWorldIsComplicated says2016-06-28T17:07:29.7174767Z
So basically we have come to the conclusion that neither of us can prove anything. Your source is useless by just reading the name it is obviously biased. That article tends to ignore that twins do not share the same genes. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/identical-twins-genes-are-not-identical/ None of your or my proof is definite
TheWorldIsComplicated says2016-06-28T18:33:17.5824722Z
So basically we have come to the conclusion that neither of us can prove anything. Your source is obviously biased. What solves the twin thing is maybe you're gay or straight because your personality is determined at birth.
David_Debates says2016-06-28T19:17:57.8730487Z
I have brought proof. Your accusation of bias could be made the same to whatever evidence you rely on, as all scientists are biased. Your scientists would be biased the same that mine are. I have brought proof, you have brought your subjective conclusions on a scientific subject (genetics) without bringing any sort of scientific "proof." I have disproven something, you have proven nothing. Need I remind you who has the burden of proof in this issue?
TheWorldIsComplicated says2016-06-28T20:13:03.3938378Z
No, you haven't proved anything, you've just provided a biased religious website. That's where you are wrong science is not biased, it's facts. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it http://www.Latimes.Com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.Html We can both spew our websites, but in reality neither one of us can prove anything. Science isn't far enough to determine something like that, but when they do that'll be the day. I guess you could count myself as a source as I never chose to be gay.
David_Debates says2016-06-29T00:06:38.1366895Z
Your sites are also quite biased, if that is your one and only objection to mine. Qazi Rahman, the author of the article you mention, is an avid writer on LGBT rights and sexuality studies. It is quite clear he is incredibly biased. Also, your second link is non-existent, so I don't know what your point was there. Seeing as you want to bring this to a conclusion, I'll go over this entire discussion, in detail: You made the statement that your sexuality is determined at conception (DNA, not choice). I negated. You admit that you have no proof ("We can both spew our websites, but in reality neither one of us can prove anything. Science isn't far enough to determine something like that, but when they do that'll be the day.") for your statement. I brought counter evidence to the Xq28 gene (http://www.Onenewsnow.Com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2014/06/17/the-latest-in-scientific-research-there-is-no-gay-gene), the statement that sexuality was the same as your skin color (there are clear, scientifically proven genes that command skin color. However, the contrast is that there aren't clear, scientifically proven genes that command sexuality), and finally, the statement that identical twins (defined by you as people that share 99.9% of the same genes) are 30% more likely to be gay if the other is also gay, which, in fact, is countered by your own evidence (That article tends to ignore that twins do not share the same genes)!
maslow says2016-07-04T19:53:49.4694743Z
The largest ever study into the existence of a so-called ‘gay gene’, conducted by NorthShore Research Institute, looked at 409 sets of gay brothers in an effort to finally put the debate to rest. The study identified two genetic regions – Xq28 an 8q12 – which seemed to be correlated to homosexuality in men. Lead scientist Alan Sanders said that the work “erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice” – but said the study also did not identify a single gene which was the direct cause of homosexuality. He stressed that a variety of factors – including genetics, upbringing and environment play a part in developing sexual orientation, which is complex and emerges over time. Though some remain sceptical, neuroscientist Simon LeVay told the New Scientist: “His study knocks another nail into the coffin of the ‘chosen lifestyle’ theory of homosexuality.” “Yes, we have a choice in life, to be ourselves or to conform to someone else’s idea of normality, but being straight, bisexual or gay, or none of these, is a central part of who we are, thanks in part to the DNA we were born with.” Richard Lane of Stonewall told the Independent: “While some people may choose to focus on the continuing debate of whether people are born gay or not, we’ll continue to focus on making sure everyone has the same rights and opportunities regardless of who they love.”
xPengy says2016-07-04T20:54:40.9380935Z
The only "plus" you would get from choosing to be attracted to the same gender is negative attention. There's no pro to choosing to be gay. This isn't really a scientific argument here - but why would someone choose it? It just makes absolutely no sense. The Pulse is evidence of how dangerous it is to even be out. Why would someone want to risk their life just by existing?

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

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