• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 15.9%
  • No

    Votes: 136 65.7%
  • Maybe/Don't Know

    Votes: 38 18.4%

  • Total voters
    207
Uh huh. Sham marriages. But hey, that's not for me to decide, and that's the point. People should marry the person they love, not whoever you think they should love.

Point is, some gays have flipped over to the other side. A straight man can't do that.
 
Point is, some gays have flipped over to the other side. A straight man can't do that.

Bahahahah. So you're making the claim right now, no straight male has ever later turned gay? REALLY?

The lengths you will go to push your points. Amazing.
 
There is exactly no difference between the sentence "God says ....." and the sentence "I say ...." - because the person picked his/her "God" - and then wants to replace "I" with "God" to claim superior authority. In short, when a person says "God says..." the person really is saying "I am God and I as God says..."

Once a person defines him/herself as God in their claims, there is no basis for discussion.
 
Uh huh. Sham marriages. But hey, that's not for me to decide, and that's the point. People should marry the person they love, not whoever you think they should love.

No, a person should marry who he/she wants to marry.
 
That's like saying, when did you choose to be straight?

It's most certainly not something anyone can control, it just happens. I didn't choose to be straight, I just love women.
 
amercianwoman is implying the SS orientation is biological. Prove it.

I said 'I don't think' as in me, what I personally think it is or is not, why should I prove what I think? Why don't you prove it's not biological since you are coming at me like I said it was.
 
I said 'I think' as in me, what I personally think it is, why should I prove what I think? Why don't you prove it's not biological since you are coming at me like I said it was.

That is something that most people on this forum will never understand. Opinions do not have to be proven.
 
According to Merriam-Websiter, homosexuality is defined by action:

Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

So of all the homosexuals in the world, you believe that 100% of them are homosexual innately? You have not convinced me away from my assertion that the percent who are homosexual are that way by choice is greater than 0%. I do believe that for some, receiving love and affection from someone of ones same sex can influence someone's lifestyle in the same way that it can influence them when that someone if of the opposite sex.

Perhaps that possibility makes you think that that somehow weakens the homosexual cause, I do not.
I don't think it weakens the cause either. I just don't believe something that makes no sense whatsoever. Homosexuality is an attraction to the same sex. Attractions cannot be chosen.
 
I don't think it weakens the cause either. I just don't believe something that makes no sense whatsoever. Homosexuality is an attraction to the same sex. Attractions cannot be chosen.

Then fight it out with Merriam-Webster.
 
But I'm not wrong. You don't understand the principles.


you are 100% factually wrong and thats already been proven

like i have asked you many times already if you disagree simply factually prove it using "your" religion

everytime you tried and posted something you completely failed and it proved me right

maybe in your next post youll have some facts or something that supports you, if you are right why dont you simply just post this evidence, i cant wait to read it
 
Last edited:
Then fight it out with Merriam-Webster.
Words can have more than one meaning. You are simply equivocating.

Take the word mouse:
Definition of MOUSE

1. any of numerous small rodents (as of the genus Mus) with pointed snout, rather small ears, elongated body, and slender tail
2. a timid person
3. a dark-colored swelling caused by a blow; specifically : black eye
4. plural also mous·es : a small mobile manual device that controls movement of the cursor and selection of functions on a computer display

Say I am talking about a mouse as in a rodent. You then say I am wrong, because a mouse is not a rodent, it is a timid person. You then give me the above dictionary definition. Yes, a mouse is a timid person. But that is not what I am talking about. If I was talking about the rodent, and asked you to bring me a mouse, and you brought me a timid person, you would be wrong. Saying "well that's what mouse means" would be an obviously fallacious excuse.

The same is true for homosexuality. Clearly I was referring to the definition of homosexuals as people attracted to the same sex. Whereas gay sex can be classified as "homosexual" that is not what is meant by the term in the context of this discussion, nor by virtually any homosexual who uses or identifies as that term.
 
Point is, some gays have flipped over to the other side. A straight man can't do that.

This is quite possibly the most ignorant thing I've ever read. Maybe you should open another exodus international.
 
No, attention is a by-product of attraction. I am gay and a gave a girl attention for 3 years who I dated and I was never attracted to her. In fact, I was always attracted to the guys I tried not to pay attention to. The reason I tried not to pay attention to them was because I didn't want to be attracted to them.

No. Attraction is unchangeable. Don't delude yourself.

I disagree. We can pay attention to things we aren't attracted to. A boring lecture just before the exam for instance, the naked guy robbing the store (even hetero males can give an accurate description to the police). Bad examples maybe but I'm pressed for time. Attraction is not unchangeable. My standards of attraction change, willfully, depending on the quality of prospective mates in my environment. -Which, incidentally explains (partly, at least) homosexual behavior in prisons and on navy ships.

There is no "force" that controls who/what I pay attention to. In my opinion, my ability to pay attention is only limited as indicated by the total number of who's and what's I can pay attention to at once. What do you say to the notion that.... Sexual orientation can't change and anyone who testifies that it can is a bisexual.... is an example of circular logic?
 
According to Merriam-Websiter, homosexuality is defined by action:

Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

So of all the homosexuals in the world, you believe that 100% of them are homosexual innately? You have not convinced me away from my assertion that the percent who are homosexual are that way by choice is greater than 0%. I do believe that for some, receiving love and affection from someone of ones same sex can influence someone's lifestyle in the same way that it can influence them when that someone if of the opposite sex.

Perhaps that possibility makes you think that that somehow weakens the homosexual cause, I do not.

Holy #$%^! I totally agree. Whether or not sexual orientation is a choice should have no bearing on equal rights for all.
 
It appears to me (perhaps incorrectly) that you accept in heterosexuals a basic imperative (drive?) to procreate with a member of the opposite sex. Yet you seem to imply that all someone displaying homosexual tendencies is doing is suppressing this basic imperative (for some unknown reason), thus exercising a choice not to act properly in accordance with instinctive(?) reproductive nature.

What do you mean by "accept" in heterosexuals a basic....? I don't believe such a drive exists, even if it did, i would not believe that it could not and should not be ignored. I disagree with the second sentence ("Yet you seem...") I don't feel that way at all.

However, I think it entirely plausible that this imperative to procreate can be reversed in human genetic coding. That is because this occurs in nature as a method of reducing overpopulation in various species. That would leave homosexuals with no such drive, instead leading them to focus on neuter relationships. Thus the lack of arousal would be due to a natural resistance to female hormones released to incite sexual attraction and arousal.

Yes. That's plausible. Only to be proven/disproven by geneticists.

I also disagree that arousal is inevitable simply because those stressors you mention are not present due to the above.

Of course. It's not inevitable.



Again, the scenario I posited did not indicate stress, simply a lack of interest and arousal. The boy is fully aware of his proper role once shown, and as for being strange and alien? He’s grown up with them and in a state of nature all parties must be aware of his physical differences. In prepubescent children this typically excites curiosity, not hostility. Upon reaching sexual maturity this increases the curiosity and turns it into experimentation.


No, I was very clear that no amount of stimulation from the females effected arousal in the boy. His desire was focused on the other boy alone. As for the reason, I presented one earlier in this post. In any case fondling genitals is not an absolute guarantee of arousal in everyone, just the umm oversexed? Undersexed? I don’t know. LOL.

I am still thinking about what, aside from innate homosexual orientation, would cause the boy's behavior. Tough one.
 
If homosexuality is not a choice, then must there be genetic markers for it?
What about bisexuals? Should they also have distinct genetic markers for bisexuality?
How do people who believe that sexual orientation is not a choice explain bisexuals?


Is sexual orientation evidenced by sexual acts, falling in love (with a certain sex), or both?

I've heard many people say that it is not sexual acts alone. I agree. After all, everything (not everything you literal idiots) feels good with the lights off.
I haven't heard any comments on whether it is or isn't related to who you fall in love with. I have heard that sexual orientation is related strongly to attraction. As in: If you are attracted to the same sex then you are homosexual.

And that being attracted to whichever of the two sexes you are attracted to... never changes. This point I find difficult to agree with. I find that familiarity (among other things) breeds attraction. You become familiar by paying attention. Who you pay attention to is influenced in part by who is in your environment. Not that your environment forces you to pay a certain amount of attention to someone. It certainly does not.

It's a tricky call. Which is the cause of the other?
I looked at his butt as he walked by because I am attracted to him
Or
I became attracted after staring at his butt?

The first situation implies (to me) that I have no control over where my own eyes point. The second situation makes more sense to me.... Staring lead to contemplating and contemplating lead to lusting.

In guys who say they did not choose to be straight, I think they simply have not allowed themselves to get to the contemplating phase, or to get past it.

In guys who say they tried to be attracted to girls but it never worked.... Well, I don't want to argue with their personal experience. After all, they are firsthand, expert witnesses. Still, I think on a long enough timeline, with the right kind of contemplating, then attraction would occur. Attention comes first.
 
Last edited:
This isn't about whether one is for or against gay marriage.....

Simply vote and discuss whether you believe that homosexuals have a choice in the matter, or were simply born that way, with no choice whatsoever.

Please be courteous - thanks in advance.
I'm a heterosexual but I choose abstinence since I'm no longer married. To that same degree is homosexuality a choice for gays, no more or less.
 
There's no poll.

But no, homosexuality isn't a choice. Gays can't just flip over to the other side anymore than a straight person can make himself gay.
You're posting this 1 minute after the thread was made. Have you never made a poll? The poll does not appear with the thread. The poll has to be made after the thread is made. It takes a moment if you want it don right. Calm the **** down Mr. Eager Beaver.
 
What do you mean by "accept" in heterosexuals a basic....? I don't believe such a drive exists, even if it did, i would not believe that it could not and should not be ignored. I disagree with the second sentence ("Yet you seem...") I don't feel that way at all.

I am still thinking about what, aside from innate homosexual orientation, would cause the boy's behavior. Tough one.

Well as you could see I did not state you had such a belief, (noted by the various "??" I placed) only that it seemed to me that might be the case. Thank you for corrcting my impression.

If homosexuality is not a choice, then must there be genetic markers for it?
What about bisexuals? Should they also have distinct genetic markers for bisexuality?
How do people who believe that sexual orientation is not a choice explain bisexuals?


Is sexual orientation evidenced by sexual acts, falling in love (with a certain sex), or both?

I chose to focus on this part of your second post because it goes hand in hand with my possible genetic deviation theory. Always recall, I consider this only ONE of three factors that lead to active homo- and heterosexuality.

We alread know that certain combinations of X and Y chromosomes not only determine sex (XX = female, XY = male) but that there are combinations that cause other effects (XXX, XXY, XYY, etc.) such as females with male characteristics, males with female characteristics, and even hermaphrodites.

It is my belief that sexual orientation is a natural population control mechanism for the Human species, and as such our genetic codes carry "markers" for the whole range of sexual orientations...with hetero and homosxuality on the extremes and bisexuality serving as in interim bridge. This theory does not eliminate choice, since individual personality can effect behavior such that either orientation, heterosexual or homosexual, can have members with a very experimental personality leading to such things as sadism, masochism, beastiality, group sex, and even same-sex/opposite-sex encounters.

Still, it is my belief that bisexuality is a distinct orientation serving as an initial expression of population control to slow growth in a developing population, and homosexuality is an expression to retard such growth.
 
Last edited:
edited for inadvertent double post
 
Last edited:
Still, it is my belief that bisexuality is a distinct orientation serving as an initial expression of population control to slow growth in a developing population, and homosexuality is an expression to retard such growth.

My understanding is that the world's population has boomed over the past 1000 years compared to that previous 10,000. You are suggesting that, despite being able to grow our own food and increase beef production, that evolution in the past 1000 years has turned on a control-the-pop-via-homosexuality-function? That's pretty fast-acting evolution. Or, are you saying the marker is already there and just awaits being turned on? Of course, it would help to know how many homosexuals there were between 1000 and 10,000 years ago. And it would help to know what environmental cues turn on the homosexuality function. Lack of food? Possibly. -If there is a difference in the # of homosexuals in food poor nations and the # of homosexuals in food rich nations. If the rate is the same, then lack of food will not turn on the cue/marker.
 
Back
Top Bottom