• 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
Let's prove that they're born gay. The other options all fall into two main categories, they were "confused" children or they choose to be gay.

The idea that kids are "confused" into being gay is kind of easy to disprove; remember in the 50's and before, where being openly gay could pretty much ensure you getting beaten to death in the streets? There were plenty of gays, they were documented and polled by underground physicians and such; it's not like "gay" is a new phenomenon. And yet, there were still gays. How? According to the theory that kids are "confused" by openly gay people and by gay couples, and that's why they're gay, how does that explain gay people in the 50's or before, or in the current day, in places where open homosexuality can carry a death sentence? There aren't any openly gay people under those circumstances, and yet there are still people that develop into gay adults. How?

It's kind of obvious that gay people have been a fairly consistent portion of the population, whether society has acknowledged them or not, whether they were openly gay or not, so it's kind of self-evident that social acceptance or openness of Homosexuality is not the cause of Homosexuality. That destroys the "confused children" theory/fear. That leave's "they choose to be gay" or "they're born gay".

Nobody, in the history of the world, has ever said they "chose" to be gay. There is no evidence that anyone can choose to switch their orientation (you try it, maybe I'm wrong). Above all else, there is no motive for choosing to be gay. I mean, really, what do they "get" for being gay? Buttsex? In case you didn't know, girls have one too. Or do you think there's a secret "gay" religion where they go to gay heaven if they're Homosexual enough. Nope, in real life they get beaten, threatened, tortured, murdered, discriminated, and overall mistreatment. What is their motive? I can safely say that there isn't one, and that blows that theory out of the water; nobody chooses to be gay.

By power of deduction, that leaves us with the only remaining option; they were born gay. Does it matter that nobody has a definitive answer for why? Nope, you can narrow down the solution to a possible range of valid answers without knowing which one it is; Just because I don't know how they are born gay doesn't mean it's not the only available range of answers, it's all that's left. They were born gay, whether we know how or not, just like the sky is blue, whether you know why or not.
 
Why is that? Go and study any of the classic psychological studies of attraction and you will find the main component is learned behavior. and no I'm not going to post a link, too easy for anyone to just do a google search

I'm not going to study or google it. I've lived it, so i certainly know better than you.
 
I'm not going to study or google it. I've lived it, so i certainly know better than you.

Lived it? Every one lives it, attraction is part of the human condition. Now that you have barged out of the closet you should maybe calm down and take a second look at my posts. What I didn't do is make a distinction between heterosexual sex and attraction and homosexual sex and attraction. I referenced sex as voluntary behavior and attraction as learned behavior.
 
So... what part of the above definition supports your scientific declaration that sexual attraction is learned, and not natural?

I didn't say anything about definitions. What I can say is that there is no conclusive science that supports a genetic or biological explanation for attraction. There is however several psychological studies that do conclusively show that there are components of attraction that are learned. Now one may be predisposed to same sex attraction, but no one knows conclusively why.
 
Lived it? Every one lives it, attraction is part of the human condition. Now that you have barged out of the closet you should maybe calm down and take a second look at my posts. What I didn't do is make a distinction between heterosexual sex and attraction and homosexual sex and attraction. I referenced sex as voluntary behavior and attraction as learned behavior.

There's no consequence to heterosexuality being "learned behavior." Since heteronormative attraction is drilled into us from a young age, using your logic, homosexuals 'fail' to learn to like the opposite sex. Everyone else just went along with it as told and 'achieved' heterosexuality. The implications are completely different, which is why this thread isn't titled "Is *sexuality* a choice?" It's laughable that anyone would choose or learn homosexuality. You can argue with douglas as to why that is.
 
There's no consequence to heterosexuality being "learned behavior." Since heteronormative attraction is drilled into us from a young age, using your logic, homosexuals 'fail' to learn to like the opposite sex. Everyone else just went along with it as told and 'achieved' heterosexuality. The implications are completely different, which is why this thread isn't titled "Is *sexuality* a choice?" It's laughable that anyone would choose or learn homosexuality. You can argue with douglas as to why that is.

The reason I answered the way I did was to remove the emotional aspect from the question. Human behavior is either voluntary or involuntary. All voluntary behavior requires a choice, the orientation doesn't matter.
 
There's no consequence to heterosexuality being "learned behavior." Since heteronormative attraction is drilled into us from a young age, using your logic, homosexuals 'fail' to learn to like the opposite sex. Everyone else just went along with it as told and 'achieved' heterosexuality. The implications are completely different, which is why this thread isn't titled "Is *sexuality* a choice?" It's laughable that anyone would choose or learn homosexuality. You can argue with douglas as to why that is.

heterosexuality is the default mode it has to be for the survival of the species any other behavior is either learned or a defect
 
heterosexuality is the default mode it has to be for the survival of the species any other behavior is either learned or a defect

Your assumption of "default" over "normative" has nothing to back it up. Both would still allow for survival of species.
 
heterosexuality is the default mode it has to be for the survival of the species any other behavior is either learned or a defect
One might argue that homosexuality for males is the "default" given that all fetuses begin as physically female until the androgen kicks in to develop male characteristics.

But, maquiscat also has a point.
 
Nonsense. Reality is homosexuals love committed lives every day. They work jobs, pay taxes, own homes, raise children, and contribute every bit as much as you and I. That's just a fact.

Also, I laid out three points of rebuttal. You responded with more silliness. So, talk to me about rational until you make a rational case or even a rational response.
No offense Boo, but it's quite apparent that you're far too personally involved in the issue of "homosexuality" to participate in a rational sensible discussion_

I on the other hand have absolutely no dog in this fight and therefore am able to discuss the subject from a totally impersonal, unbiased and objective vantage point_

Admittedly; in a more perfect world with fewer threats to our freedom and way of life, I might take a more personal stance based less on facts and more on emotions_
 
No offense Boo, but it's quite apparent that you're far too personally involved in the issue of "homosexuality" to participate in a rational sensible discussion_

I on the other hand have absolutely no dog in this fight and therefore am able to discuss the subject from a totally impersonal, unbiased and objective vantage point_

Admittedly; in a more perfect world with fewer threats to our freedom and way of life, I might take a more personal stance based less on facts and more on emotions_

Well, I disagree about your position of personal and rational. there is nothing rational about you stating that you'd go with it if there wasn't a threat to your freedom. The only threat to freedom is in the terms of the homosexual, who doesn't have the freedom to marry who they love. And with no just cause I might add. Rationally, if there was a just cause, you'd have a point. but to deny freedom without just cause is a problem.

Your freedom is not attacked in any way, and it is irrational to think it is.

With no offense, what bothers me about your position is how irrational it is, regardless of the dogs you do or don't have. ;)
 
Well, I disagree about your position of personal and rational. there is nothing rational about you stating that you'd go with it if there wasn't a threat to your freedom. The only threat to freedom is in the terms of the homosexual, who doesn't have the freedom to marry who they love. And with no just cause I might add. Rationally, if there was a just cause, you'd have a point. but to deny freedom without just cause is a problem.

Your freedom is not attacked in any way, and it is irrational to think it is.

With no offense, what bothers me about your position is how irrational it is, regardless of the dogs you do or don't have. ;)
You are either misrepresenting what I said, or have very badly misinterpreted it Boo_

Maybe you should try reading again what I wrote, except a little more carefully this time_

Cuz I'm certainly not going to waste time clarifying what appears crystal clear to my minds eye_
 
No offense Boo, but it's quite apparent that you're far too personally involved in the issue of "homosexuality" to participate in a rational sensible discussion_

I on the other hand have absolutely no dog in this fight and therefore am able to discuss the subject from a totally impersonal, unbiased and objective vantage point_

Admittedly; in a more perfect world with fewer threats to our freedom and way of life, I might take a more personal stance based less on facts and more on emotions_
What she said is true. By personally involved, are you saying because they're LGBT (if they are, I'm not sure) they can't have an opinion on issues that directly impact them? So what stance do you on equality for LGBT Americans?
 
You are either misrepresenting what I said, or have very badly misinterpreted it Boo_

Maybe you should try reading again what I wrote, except a little more carefully this time_

Cuz I'm certainly not going to waste time clarifying what appears crystal clear to my minds eye_

I don't think so. Read what you said about freedom and your stance.
 
in GENERAL:

practicing homosexual acts is a choice, just like practicing heterosexual acts is a choice
but ones sexual orientation is NOT a choice
 
If you have the option to choose to be sexually attracted to one or the other sex, that means you're bisexual. That's what bisexual is.
A bisexual is someone who wants to double their chances of having a date on Saturday night.
 
in GENERAL:

practicing homosexual acts is a choice, just like practicing heterosexual acts is a choice
but ones sexual orientation is NOT a choice

Practicing Wiccan ceremonies is a choice. And it is a constitutionally protected right under freedom of religion
 
The question in the thread title is referring to attraction, not the act. Attraction is not a choice.

But that is not exactly the same question as the OP. Not everyone is singularly driven by gender and sex for a relationship.
 
Practicing Wiccan ceremonies is a choice. And it is a constitutionally protected right under freedom of religion

yeeeeeeeep, you are 100% correct
 
If you have the option to choose to be sexually attracted to one or the other sex, that means you're bisexual. That's what bisexual is.

No bisexual is when you are attracted to both. There is a difference between choosing between one attraction or the other and being attracted to both.
 
No bisexual is when you are attracted to both. There is a difference between choosing between one attraction or the other and being attracted to both.

You don't choose attraction. You only choose whether or not you're going to suppress the attraction that you already feel. If you have the choice, that's the choice you're making.
 
A bisexual is someone who wants to double their chances of having a date on Saturday night.

"Is it Woody Allen?"


Thank you Alex, "I'll take Whose quote is it?" for 800.......
 
the 1st line of my post, which you quoted...
Originally Posted by Empirica
No offense Boo, but it's quite apparent that you're far too personally involved in the issue of "homosexuality" to participate in a rational sensible discussion_
leading to the following question...
What she said is true. By personally involved, are you saying because they're LGBT (if they are, I'm not sure) they can't have an opinion on issues that directly impact them?
to which I respond...
You misunderstood me Ari;
I believe we all have a right to express our opinions but some of us should avoid discussing them with those who might disagree_

The reason being, some people with a strong emotional connection to an issue are unable to rationally discuss it with dissenters_

Such people are convinced that all dissent of popular gay myths and issues are rooted in hate, homophobia and religious fanaticism_

I will admit to having a couple of issues for which I am passionate about, but pro/con gay rights isn't even close to making the list_

So what stance do you on equality for LGBT Americans?
You must have missed the 2nd line of my post(below):

Originally Posted by Empirica
I on the other hand have absolutely no dog in this fight and therefore am able to discuss the subject from a totally impersonal, unbiased and objective vantage point_
Which basically translates to:
I have no official position on gay issues at this time and therefore am able to discuss them logically and rationally_

And to better clarify the 3rd line of that same post(below):

Originally Posted by Empirica
Admittedly; in a more perfect world with fewer threats to our freedom and way of life,
.....*con-
Which basically translates to:
If the United States wasn't under multiple threats from terrorism, economic disaster, the AGW scam, assaults on the Constitution, the destruction of the American Dream from with-in and a clueless Main Stream Media; then I might take the time to consider whether Gay Rights was an important enough issue to get involved with, one way or the other_

Originally Posted by Empirica
*tinued....., I might take a more personal stance based less on facts and more on emotions_
Which basically translates to;
In a less chaotic world with fewer major issues, I might be inclined to add a personal emotional approach to the strictly logical one I now rely on when discussing minor issues such as "LGBT equality" and "school lunches"_
 
You misunderstood me Ari;
I believe we all have a right to express our opinions but some of us should avoid discussing them with those who might disagree_

The reason being, some people with a strong emotional connection to an issue are unable to rationally discuss it with dissenters_

Such people are convinced that all dissent of popular gay myths and issues are rooted in hate, homophobia and religious fanaticism_

I will admit to having a couple of issues for which I am passionate about, but pro/con gay rights isn't even close to making the list_

You must have missed the 2nd line of my post(below):

Which basically translates to:
I have no official position on gay issues at this time and therefore am able to discuss them logically and rationally_

And to better clarify the 3rd line of that same post(below):

Which basically translates to:
If the United States wasn't under multiple threats from terrorism, economic disaster, the AGW scam, assaults on the Constitution, the destruction of the American Dream from with-in and a clueless Main Stream Media; then I might take the time to consider whether Gay Rights was an important enough issue to get involved with, one way or the other_

Which basically translates to;
In a less chaotic world with fewer major issues, I might be inclined to add a personal emotional approach to the strictly logical one I now rely on when discussing minor issues such as "LGBT equality" and "school lunches"_

Long story short people who are LGBT or people have empathy for LGBT people shouldn't discuss it because, well they care. You don't care or take a position. Does that summarize it?
 
Back
Top Bottom