• 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
Arguing that homosexuality is a choice assumes there is at least one approach that makes that choice possible. You can't say there is no "approach" as that makes no sense. How else would you prove your claim true or false?

Also, nobody is arguing that failed trials prove the opposite hypothesis. So stop bringing that up, as that was explained to you already. But they do provide evidence to the opposing hypothesis. And that a man can get a lesbian woman off doesn't mean she is attracted to the man. So logically your argument already falls apart.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No. You may engage in homosexual activity, but homosexuality is defined by an attraction to the same sex.

Argument fails.

Where is the evidence that suggests your hypothesis is true?

I'm sorry. I thought you were asking me what I suggest is a good approach to change someone's orientation. If the change comes externally with the intent to change the person, then we both agree that there is no approach that is benign to the person, right?

I think that I can change by opening myself to the possibility. -via thinking it over. via determination ---not to make the change-- but to ignore my own perceived negative consequences of changing. We can agree how difficult it is to come out. I have to go. baby crying and wife givingme dirty looks.
 
I'm sorry. I thought you were asking me what I suggest is a good approach to change someone's orientation. If the change comes externally with the intent to change the person, then we both agree that there is no approach that is benign to the person, right?

I think that I can change by opening myself to the possibility. -via thinking it over. via determination ---not to make the change-- but to ignore my own perceived negative consequences of changing. We can agree how difficult it is to come out. I have to go. baby crying and wife givingme dirty looks.
And all those ways you listed of being able to change are the exact ways tried by the conversion camps and therapists, and they didn't work. So your hypothesis seems pretty debunked to me.
 
And all those ways you listed of being able to change are the exact ways tried by the conversion camps and therapists, and they didn't work. So your hypothesis seems pretty debunked to me.

So if 1 method to achieve something fails, all other methods fail as well? Why did they fail? Why is it automatically declared that they failed because orientation is unchangeable? Circular logic?
 
So if 1 method to achieve something fails, all other methods fail as well? Why did they fail? Why is it automatically declared that they failed because orientation is unchangeable? Circular logic?
Nope, just the method in particular and the principles behind it. They failed because they failed...they have been proven not to change orientation. Again, please show me the research and studies showing that attraction is a choice.
 
I disagree. If it's genetic, it is not a matter of choice. As child molesters are frequently people who were molested as children and simultaneously with the programming of their personal computer, the human brain, it appears to mean that any activity, especially a homosexual molestation would have the same cause/effect relationship. That thought has been driven away by the political correctness of stating that homosexuality is not a psychological abnormality. Ergo, you're not supposed to say it or think it. I do both because it seems to me to be one of the answers.

If I am reading your position correctly (and please let me know if I am wrong) you believe that because child molesters "are frequently people who were molested as children" this results in the development of a metal illness causing them to act out against children themselves. That since (in your opinion) homosexuals have a high frequency history of child molestation (by a male for males and a female for females I presume) this has similarly caused a mental illness compelling them to act out in same-sex relationships?

We agree on many things, as you know. But I am forced to disagree with your position on this. There is just too much empirical evidence that argues against it, not the least of which is the fact that not all child molesters (or homosexuals) have a personal history of molestation.

The other information I have addressed in an ongoing debate with "USNavysquid" (see specifically posts #103, #273, #278, #282 in this thread). I never even touched on the recent brain studies showing clear differences in homosexual brains that point not to genetics, but to hormonal changes caused while still in the mother’s womb. This could explain why one of a set of twins exhibits homosexual orientation while the other does not.

I’m certainly willing to modify my theory by replacing “genetic coding” with a more likely “hormonal changes” premise, while retaining all the other steps (post #103). Either way it indicates homosexulity is neither a choice, nor mental illness.

Now it is true that “once upon a time” homosexuality was considered a mental disorder but the vast majority of both psychiatrists and psychologists have accepted that it is not. Only a small minority still holdout, and most appear to have a personal agenda for this, i.e. religious beliefs, cultural bias, or just plain stubbornness. ;)
 
Last edited:
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.

That seems a bit too absolute. Or I should say that you are using a black or white logic that dictates that its either this way or no way at all. The problem with absolutes is that they can be proven wrong with simple logic.

If things were that absolute then there wouldnt be any bisexual people. Perhaps there are people that are born homosexual but that isnt an example of every case.
 
Too many absolutists posting. If it has been a choice for even one person, your opinion is wrong. That doesn't mean that it is a choice for everyone.
 
Nope, just the method in particular and the principles behind it. They failed because they failed...they have been proven not to change orientation. Again, please show me the research and studies showing that attraction is a choice.

So that's it? You've had all the foreplay you want and now you want to take me to bed? After all our back-n-forth you've finally asked the ultimate question? "What is your evidence?"

I argue what I believe. I believe attraction, like all behavior, is a choice. For one, I have read no studies that offer conclusive evidence that orientation is not a choice. That gives us all some wiggle room. Which is why these debates exist.

I believe attraction is a by-product of attention. "You know what? The more I watch that movie the more I like it. The more I watch that fat girl's curves, the more I see myself slipping into them." Surely, with only 1 glance, that fat girl is repulsive to me. With only 1 showing, that movie sucks. With only 1 sip, that coffee is yucky. But the more I attend to it, and contemplate it and reframe my own perceptions or open up to new ones ( a result of exposure over time because no single thought remains the same as seconds tick by (some take many many seconds to change), the more I like it, dislike it or want to increase/decrease my exposure to it.

And you say that happens with every human experience except orientation? Orientation is the one thing that remains far removed from the other processes that determine our likes/dislikes. It has it's own mechanism yet to be discovered.
 
Too many absolutists posting. If it has been a choice for even one person, your opinion is wrong. That doesn't mean that it is a choice for everyone.
I don't know a single gay person who says they chose their attractions. I don't see a shred of evidence to support it either. Just assertions.
 
So that's it? You've had all the foreplay you want and now you want to take me to bed? After all our back-n-forth you've finally asked the ultimate question? "What is your evidence?"

I argue what I believe. I believe attraction, like all behavior, is a choice. For one, I have read no studies that offer conclusive evidence that orientation is not a choice. That gives us all some wiggle room. Which is why these debates exist.

I believe attraction is a by-product of attention. "You know what? The more I watch that movie the more I like it. The more I watch that fat girl's curves, the more I see myself slipping into them." Surely, with only 1 glance, that fat girl is repulsive to me. With only 1 showing, that movie sucks. With only 1 sip, that coffee is yucky. But the more I attend to it, and contemplate it and reframe my own perceptions or open up to new ones ( a result of exposure over time because no single thought remains the same as seconds tick by (some take many many seconds to change), the more I like it, dislike it or want to increase/decrease my exposure to it.

And you say that happens with every human experience except orientation? Orientation is the one thing that remains far removed from the other processes that determine our likes/dislikes. It has it's own mechanism yet to be discovered.
I already gave you examples of evidence suggesting homosexuality is not a choice. Gay therapy and straight camps have been proven failures. You are repeating the exact same argument that was already refuted. You have come full circle in your fallacious reasoning, and not once along the way did you offer any type of evidence. Not a single example. You have only baseless assertions. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Your reasoning is unsound, your evidence is nonexistent, and yet you cling to your beliefs anyway. I call that insanity.
 
That seems a bit too absolute. Or I should say that you are using a black or white logic that dictates that its either this way or no way at all. The problem with absolutes is that they can be proven wrong with simple logic.

If things were that absolute then there wouldnt be any bisexual people. Perhaps there are people that are born homosexual but that isnt an example of every case.

However, bisexuality may not be a choice either. In my theory, expressed in post #103, #273, #278, #282, and modified in #355 to adapt "hormonal changes in the womb," it is a population control mechanism, sort of a bridge between heterosexual and homosexual orientations.

Therefore, the cross-over expression of bisexuality does not have to demonstrate a choice of behaviors by either homosexuals or heterosexuals, but a clear intermediate sexual orientation in and of itself.
 
However, bisexuality may not be a choice either. In my theory, expressed in post #103, #273, #278, #282, and modified in #355 to adapt "hormonal changes in the womb," it is a population control mechanism, sort of a bridge between heterosexual and homosexual orientations.

Therefore, the cross-over expression of bisexuality does not have to demonstrate a choice of behaviors by either homosexuals or heterosexuals, but a clear intermediate sexual orientation in and of itself.
Precisely. Well put.
 
Too many absolutists posting. If it has been a choice for even one person, your opinion is wrong. That doesn't mean that it is a choice for everyone.

I agree, because clearly juveniles of all ages engage in experimentation as a learning mechanism. So in pubescent periods (ages 13-15) there is often same-sex contact amongst heterosexual kids of both sexes due to a combination of curiousity, and ease of companionship. But one or two such experiments suffice for a purely heterosexual person. Whereas bisexuals continue the dual activity, and homosexuals continue same sex activity. This does not prove they had a "choice" all along.
 
I already gave you examples of evidence suggesting homosexuality is not a choice. Gay therapy and straight camps have been proven failures. You are repeating the exact same argument that was already refuted. You have come full circle in your fallacious reasoning, and not once along the way did you offer any type of evidence. Not a single example. You have only baseless assertions. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Your reasoning is unsound, your evidence is nonexistent, and yet you cling to your beliefs anyway. I call that insanity.

Yikes. This has turned nasty.

The point that conversion therapy failed is a weak point. They could have failed for reasons that have nothing to do with the changeable-ness or unchangeable-ness of orientation. We are Both repeating the same arguments. We are both clinging.

What other examples besides the conversion camps did you give?
 
That seems a bit too absolute. Or I should say that you are using a black or white logic that dictates that its either this way or no way at all. The problem with absolutes is that they can be proven wrong with simple logic.

If things were that absolute then there wouldnt be any bisexual people. Perhaps there are people that are born homosexual but that isnt an example of every case.

Doesn't have to be every case, so I have no idea why you're even making that argument. Either way, there's no reason to outlaw non-violent behavior.
 
Yikes. This has turned nasty.

The point that conversion therapy failed is a weak point. They could have failed for reasons that have nothing to do with the changeable-ness or unchangeable-ness of orientation. We are Both repeating the same arguments. We are both clinging.

What other examples besides the conversion camps did you give?
Its not a weak point. You said if people pay attention to something they can change their attraction. That is exactly what these camps did, and they failed. Does that mean your position is necessarily wrong? No. But it suggests that it is, and that matters. And still, you have absolutely no evidence that suggests your position is right. Your turn to give examples.
 
If I am reading your position correctly (and please let me know if I am wrong) you believe that because child molesters "are frequently people who were molested as children" this results in the development of a metal illness causing them to act out against children themselves. That since (in your opinion) homosexuals have a high frequency history of child molestation (by a male for males and a female for females I presume) this has similarly caused a mental illness compelling them to act out in same-sex relationships?

We agree on many things, as you know. But I am forced to disagree with your position on this. There is just too much empirical evidence that argues against it, not the least of which is the fact that not all child molesters (or homosexuals) have a personal history of molestation.

The other information I have addressed in an ongoing debate with "USNavysquid" (see specifically posts #103, #273, #278, #282 in this thread). I never even touched on the recent brain studies showing clear differences in homosexual brains that point not to genetics, but to hormonal changes caused while still in the mother’s womb. This could explain why one of a set of twins exhibits homosexual orientation while the other does not.

I’m certainly willing to modify my theory by replacing “genetic coding” with a more likely “hormonal changes” premise, while retaining all the other steps (post #103). Either way it indicates homosexulity is neither a choice, nor mental illness.

Now it is true that “once upon a time” homosexuality was considered a mental disorder but the vast majority of both psychiatrists and psychologists have accepted that it is not. Only a small minority still holdout, and most appear to have a personal agenda for this, i.e. religious beliefs, cultural bias, or just plain stubbornness. ;)

My position accounts for some of the individuals that are homosexual, by no means all. I do understand the position of the majority of the Psychological Community and I disagree with that. I don't have any agenda that I am aware of, just studied the question because I was in College and it made a good choice for a Research Paper while at the same time providing answers to my own questions on the subject. All I can pass on is the core of what I researched. I will add a note. Any paper that states that gays are not genetic is not well received in the Educational environment.
 
There is a lot of insistence that homosexuality is not a choice. There is, however, no conclusive evidence that some have no choice but we DO have conclusive evidence that some DO engage in homosexuality by choice. That doesn't give us a firm answer on anything but the preponderance of the evidence points to choice and we know for certain that at least some of the time it is a choice.
 
So that's it? You've had all the foreplay you want and now you want to take me to bed?


LOL Dude! Sometimes I think you're just in here acting as an agent-provocateur ...you make me laugh too much (as in your jokes not your positions). ;)
 
Its not a weak point. You said if people pay attention to something they can change their attraction. That is exactly what these camps did, and they failed. Does that mean your position is necessarily wrong? No. But it suggests that it is, and that matters. And still, you have absolutely no evidence that suggests your position is right. Your turn to give examples.

The examples are few: #1: Bisexuals. #2 Every time we changed a like to a dislike and vice versa. If future research discovers the differences among homo hetero and bi And proves a cause-effect relationship, and if it does so conclusively, I will accept it. Sheesh.
 
There is a lot of insistence that homosexuality is not a choice. There is, however, no conclusive evidence that some have no choice but we DO have conclusive evidence that some DO engage in homosexuality by choice. That doesn't give us a firm answer on anything but the preponderance of the evidence points to choice and we know for certain that at least some of the time it is a choice.

What evidence are you talking about?
 
My position accounts for some of the individuals that are homosexual, by no means all. I do understand the position of the majority of the Psychological Community and I disagree with that. I don't have any agenda that I am aware of, just studied the question because I was in College and it made a good choice for a Research Paper while at the same time providing answers to my own questions on the subject. All I can pass on is the core of what I researched. I will add a note. Any paper that states that gays are not genetic is not well received in the Educational environment.

To be clear, are you either a psychiatrist or psychologist? Or are you saying that you took some psychology courses in college while pursuing a different degree?

I'm not asking for "credentials" I am simply trying to determine if my question should be "why do you disagree with your peers?" or "what makes you think the majority of trained professionals in both fields are wrong?"
 
And the people that stayed gay?

You could say that they are gay. You can also create a new category called "Gay with X number of heterosexual episodes." Or you can call them bi. Or create a new category : "Bi with majority of lifespan living as gay."
 
Back
Top Bottom