• 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
AliHajiSheik said:
How do you know it isn't? Sometimes it can also become about group identification. Again, my opinion is that there are a percent for whom it is a choice and a percent for whom it is innate and that the percentage of both is above 0%.
Click to expand...
I see no evidence to believe it is a choice. Not a single shred of evidence at all. You can want to be part of a group, and have sex with certain people, but that doesn't change who you are attracted to. Attraction is not defined by action.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
How so?

I love the band Boston, because I find their music very enjoyable and catchy. I don't simply stop liking Boston. Nor do I suddenly start liking Kayne West's newest albums.

Even if I stopped listening to "More Than a Feeling", does that mean I don't like?
Click to expand...

Would you argue that this preference is primarily biological in nature, or the result of environmental factors?

If you had been raised in a minority culture, would you have learned to favor Kayne West's music instead? Even now, could you not learn to appreciate Kayne West's music as an acquired taste if you desired to do so?

This is the primary difference in question where the matter of "choice" in homosexuality concerned. If a biologically straight man, so inclined, develops a sexual preference for the same gender as an "acquired taste," that is a matter of choice, not compulsion.

I wouldn't say that this kind of thing is particularly common, but I wouldn't rule it out as being entirely impossible either.

If I remember correctly, sexual fetishes were believed to be caused by lack of exposure to 'normal' sexual stimulation during adolescence.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that's not quite the same thing as having a biological or genetic "compulsion" towards them.
 
Gathomas88 said:
If you had been raised in a minority culture, would you have learned to favor Kayne West's music instead?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's something either of us can truthfully answer.

Even now, could you not learn to appreciate Kayne West's music as an acquired taste if you desired to do so?
Click to expand...

No. I could force myself to listen to it, but that does not mean I would like it.

This is the primary difference in question where the matter of "choice" in homosexuality concerned. If a biologically straight man, so inclined, develops a sexual preference for the same gender as an "acquired taste," that is a matter of choice, not compulsion.
Click to expand...

How do we know the taste (Heh,) of men was not just already there? I mean, what drove him to desire a sexual relationship with another man? How can we pin down what caused the development?





Perhaps, but that's not quite the same thing as having a biological or genetic "compulsion" towards them.[/QUOTE]
 
Lakryte said:
I see no evidence to believe it is a choice. Not a single shred of evidence at all. You can want to be part of a group, and have sex with certain people, but that doesn't change who you are attracted to. Attraction is not defined by action.
Click to expand...

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.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) its mine too
2.) yes i do and YOU proved it by qouting what is sin, it supported me and proved you wrong
3.) this is true because you believe things that are factually untrue
4.) we do follow the same religion

now if you would please stop being dishonest and continue to get upset or admit you are factually wrong

provide the evidence based off of YOUR religion has to why homosexuality itself is a sin, id love to read it, so far everything you have posted proves that wrong.
Click to expand...

But I'm not wrong. You don't understand the principles.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Ever heard of fecalphelia? It's actually not unheard of for someone to "choose" to like feces.
Click to expand...

You know a lot about this practice? I certaily don't.


Gathomas88 said:
The genitalia of your own gender would strike me as being rather tame by way of comparison.
Click to expand...

Sir, nobody has EVER described my genitilia as tame.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
You are talking about MY religion.
Click to expand...

I must say that your zeal in pointing out the enormous abomination inherent in wearing mixed fibers, planting mixed crops in a field or eating shellfish is most admirable. Even more so is your putting this religion of yours into practice by way of your strict adherence to such.

Some might consider it a bit less than admirable, however, the way you show absolutely no understanding of context. The very things you champion are the very things Jesus railed against with such ferver, and your inability to distinguish between some old Pharisee stuff in Leviticus and the actual teachings of Jesus show that this religion of yours is simply a convenient justification for arbitrary bigotry.
 
Gardener said:
I must say that your zeal in pointing out the enormous abomination inherent in wearing mixed fibers, planting mixed crops in a field or eating shellfish is most admirable. Even more so is your putting this religion of yours into practice by way of your strict adherence to such.

Some might consider it a bit less than admirable, however, the way you show absolutely no understanding of context. The very things you champion are the very things Jesus railed against with such ferver, and your inability to distinguish between some old Pharisee stuff in Leviticus and the actual teachings of Jesus show that this religion of yours is simply a convenient justification for arbitrary bigotry.
Click to expand...

Actually I seem to be the only one who understands the context. It was a sin in the New Testament too....
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Actually I seem to be the only one who understands the context. It was a sin in the New Testament too....
Click to expand...

Kindly quite the passage where Jesus calls it such, then.

It should be quite the simple matter if He did.
 
Gardener said:
Kindly quite the passage where Jesus calls it such, then.

It should be quite the simple matter if He did.
Click to expand...

Did I say Jesus is quoted as such? No, however we do not have every quote of Christ recorded. That being said, the New Testament, as I showed and quoted earlier, does quote such. That being said, Christ never overlooked sin, he forgave, but he did not blatantly allow sin. In fact, in all situations he told the sinner to go and stop sinning.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Did I say Jesus is quoted as such? No, however we do not have every quote of Christ recorded. That being said, the New Testament, as I showed and quoted earlier, does quote such. That being said, Christ never overlooked sin, he forgave, but he did not blatantly allow sin. In fact, in all situations he told the sinner to go and stop sinning.
Click to expand...

I see. So you don't follow Jesus Christ.


Is it Paulinianity you follow, then?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
You don't know how this works do you?
Click to expand...

The inability to discern the difference between Jesus and Paul or the writings of Pharisees and the words of the Son of God?

I know exactly how that works. It is due to lack of thought, and preferring to follow those who purport to represent and interpret the religion rather than following Jesus.

Modern day Pharisees differ little from ancient ones in that particular regard.
 
The question is grossly over-simplied and is dependent upon each individual.

"Homosexuality" may just mean the sex-act - for which the person may actually be semi-bisexual or just highly promiscuous in general. It may mean a person is only physically attracted to one gender. It may mean a person is more leaning towards attraction to one gender over they other. It may mean that sexuality and relationship isn't determined by gender of the other person.

There also a distinction between sexuality and relationship attraction. And it may not have to do with gender, but instead with the person him/herself - ie the slogan "I fall in love with a person, not with a gender." Thus, for some people, their "orientation" isn't gender based, but on a much broader collection of whatever makes another person desirable for a relationship.

So my answer is that for some it is a choice, for others not a choice at all, and still for others the primary question isn't sexuality, but relationship and that question isn't foremost a gender-based question, but the greater question of the personae of the other person.
 
Gardener said:
The inability to discern the difference between Jesus and Paul or the writings of Pharisees and the words of the Son of God?

I know exactly how that works. It is due to lack of thought, and preferring to follow those who purport to represent and interpret the religion rather than following Jesus.

Modern day Pharisees differ little from ancient ones in that particular regard.
Click to expand...

You realize God inspired Paul and those words are from God right?
 
davidtaylorjr said:
You realize God inspired Paul and those words are from God right?
Click to expand...

I realize that Saul saw an opportunity to co-opt the movement established by Jesus in order to put his stamp on it. One day he is persecuting the followers of Jesus. The next day he is corrupting the message and changing it to his own.

You have chosen to follow Paul rather than Jesus and that is certainly your prerogitive. You are free to follow any charlatan you want.

How anybody could call themself a Christian while so thoroughly rejecting the message of Jesus in favor of just about anybody else remains a mystery to me, however.
 
Gardener said:
I realize that Saul saw an opportunity to co-opt the movement established by Jesus in order to put his stamp on it. One day he is persecuting the followers of Jesus. The next day he is corrupting the message and changing it to his own.

You have chosen to follow Paul rather than Jesus and that is certainly your prerogitive. You are free to follow any charlatan you want.

How anybody could call themself a Christian while so thoroughly rejecting the message of Jesus in favor of just about anybody else remains a mystery to me, however.
Click to expand...

Newsflash, their message was the same.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Newsflash, their message was the same.
Click to expand...

Hardly.

But if you consider Paul as speaking for God rather than Jesus, that is certainly your choice. Same goes with those old timey Pharisee preachers thumping their bibles in order to get you all worked up about people who are causing you no harm in order to cause harm to them. Follow thm all you want.

Jesus said "Believe in ME". You are certainly free to continue to believe in anybody but.
 
Gardener said:
Hardly.

But if you consider Paul as speaking for God rather than Jesus, that is certainly your choice. Same goes with those old timey Pharisee preachers thumping their bibles in order to get you all worked up about people who are causing you no harm in order to cause harm to them. Follow thm all you want.

Jesus said "Believe in ME". You are certainly free to continue to believe in anybody but.
Click to expand...

Can you show me where Jesus and Paul contradicted then? Good luck with that by the way.
 
Gardener said:
Read Luke 21.8.

After doing so, read Romans 13.12
Click to expand...

Um, you might have to translate for us because I don't see how this proves your point.

8 And he said, “See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.


Luke 21:8--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

12 The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Romans 13:12
Click to expand...
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Um, you might have to translate for us because I don't see how this proves your point.
Click to expand...

So Jesus warns His followers very directly to not follow those who claim the time is at hand and it is they speaking for God, and Paul comes along claiming to speak for God saying the time is at hand.

and I need to explain this to you, do I?

You just said that is really Paul who speaks for God even though Jesus expressly warned warned you about such.
 
Gardener said:
So Jesus warns His followers very directly to not follow those who claim the time is at hand and it is they speaking for God, and Paul comes along claiming to speak for God saying the time is at hand.

and I need to explain this to you, do I?

You just said that is really Paul who speaks for God even though Jesus expressly warned warned you about such.
Click to expand...

Two problems,

1. You took things WAY out of context.

2. Those two verses aren't even referring to the same thing.

Nice try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom