• 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
thats what i thought!
we knew you wouldnt post your "proof" because there isnt any. Dont know why you just insist on posting dishonesty, it just further exposes you.

Let us know when you are ready to man up and admit you were factually wrong or ready to post proof.

I've already posted proof, you don't accept it. That's not factually wrong, that is you being just as biased as I am.
 
I've already posted proof, you don't accept it. That's not factually wrong, that is you being just as biased as I am.

yes you did post proof,and i accept it 100% because its proof that you are wrong.
this fact has been proven by what you posted, there is no biased on my part i just except the facts and you deny them as usual.


the fact remains that homosexuality in itself is factually not a sin, you provided nothing to prove otherwise and what you did post supports that fact. You are always going to lose to facts.
 
yes you did post proof,and i accept it 100% because its proof that you are wrong.
this fact has been proven by what you posted, there is no biased on my part i just except the facts and you deny them as usual.


the fact remains that homosexuality in itself is factually not a sin, you provided nothing to prove otherwise and what you did post supports that fact. You are always going to lose to facts.

You claim that based on your limited understanding of Scripture.
 
You claim that based on your limited understanding of Scripture.

wrong again, making stuff up wont help you. WHy cant you just be honest?

fact remains that just like heterosexuality in itself homosexuality in itself is not a sin and what you posted supports that fact. Let us know when you have something else different or will just continue on being dishonest and denying facts.

or better yet Why dont you simply post your proof that you claim to have.
 
wrong again, making stuff up wont help you. WHy cant you just be honest?

fact remains that just like heterosexuality in itself homosexuality in itself is not a sin and what you posted supports that fact. Let us know when you have something else different or will just continue on being dishonest and denying facts.

or better yet Why dont you simply post your proof that you claim to have.

You still hold that acts, and thoughts, are two different things. Jesus said otherwise as I have already posted.
 
You still hold that acts, and thoughts, are two different things. Jesus said otherwise as I have already posted.

yes they are and your thoughts are wrong proven by the facts.

sexuality is not THOUGHTS if it was heterosexuality would be a sin too lol

nope what you posted was about ACTS not sexuality itself, you were wrong then and are still wrong now, nothing as changed. If you disagree AGAIN post this proof, we cant wait to read it.
 
yes they are and your thoughts are wrong proven by the facts.

sexuality is not THOUGHTS if it was heterosexuality would be a sin too lol

nope what you posted was about ACTS not sexuality itself, you were wrong then and are still wrong now, nothing as changed. If you disagree AGAIN post this proof, we cant wait to read it.

So you are saying that homosexuals do not lust after people? Is that what you are saying?
 
So you are saying that homosexuals do not lust after people? Is that what you are saying?

nope not at all just like heterosexuals sometimes they have lust and that is the sin lust

are you saying that heterosexuals do not lust after people?

sorry homosexuality just like heterosexuality in itself is factually not a sin, already proven but your own very posts.
 
nope not at all just like heterosexuals sometimes they have lust and that is the sin lust

are you saying that heterosexuals do not lust after people?

sorry homosexuality just like heterosexuality in itself is factually not a sin, already proven but your own very posts.

Did I ever say heterosexuals do not lust? No. However, lust is an irremovable part of sexuality, it is what drives sexuality, and it is sin. It's not an act as it is not a conscious choice most of the time. Homosexual lust is just as much sin as heterosexual lust. Homosexuals are fighting for the rights to act upon their homosexuality. It is not just the act that is sin.
 
Did I ever say heterosexuals do not lust? No. However, 1.)lust is an irremovable part of sexuality, it is what drives sexuality, and it is sin. It's not an act as it is not a conscious choice most of the time. 2.)Homosexual lust is just as much sin as heterosexual lust.
3.)Homosexuals are fighting for the rights to act upon their homosexuality. It is not just the act that is sin.

1.)factually not true
2.) so again you admit that sexuality in itself is NOT sin
3.) no they are only fighting it if they want to and figting it in itself is not a sin

so again nothing as changed, the fact is homosexuality in itself is not a sin just like heterosexuality is not a sin by itself
 
1.)factually not true
2.) so again you admit that sexuality in itself is NOT sin
3.) no they are only fighting it if they want to and figting it in itself is not a sin

so again nothing as changed, the fact is homosexuality in itself is not a sin just like heterosexuality is not a sin by itself

The pursuit of the right to sin, is also a sin as you are going against God.
 
The pursuit of the right to sin, is also a sin as you are going against God.


Then im a sinner :shrug:
again nothing as changed, the fact is homosexuality in itself is not a sin just like heterosexuality is not a sin by itself.
 
We are all sinners.

depends on who one worships and their morals and their beliefs and which ones you are using to judge
but the fact remains homosexuality itself is not a sin
 
depends on who one worships and their morals and their beliefs and which ones you are using to judge
but the fact remains homosexuality itself is not a sin

If that's the way you believe, fine. But as I said before, this part of the discussion originated with my talking about my belief, so there is nothing further to discuss.
 
1.)If that's the way you believe, fine.
2.) But as I said before, this part of the discussion originated with my talking about my belief,
3.) so there is nothing further to discuss.

1.) my beliefs play zero role in it, its the facts as proven even by your own posts
2.) the beliefs you claim to follow agree with the facts i posted
3.) I agree that is your best move because you are factually wrong and that wont change
 
I just checked, and Merriam-Webster haven't change their definition of homosexuality:

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

So clearly the debate you and they are having hasn't been settled yet--at least in your mind.

As for your evidence, it may be indicative in some people that supports that being gay is innate. I never said that for some people it wasn't. But since this is science, I like to see the word "PROVEN" for something to be certain. If they have all these tests, have they been able to identify homosexuals among a group of people who have not identified themselves as homosexual? I have found articles that indicate that there are a group of gays that don't want to admit the possibility that there are some for which there is a choice because they don't want to give ammunition to the other side. I have no such agenda. Bringing up gay conversion is irrelevant since that is typically someone other than the person pursing a change.

One who has caught a lot of such flack is the actress Cynthia Nixon who says that after 20 years in a relationship with a man and two children, that recently she made the choice to be gay. Some bash her for not really being gay but bisexual instead. Perhaps you feel the same way, but if she says that she chose to be gay, it is none of my business, let her be gay. I don't need to study the issue because I don't have an agenda either way.

Again, my only assertion is that there are a percentage of people who are innately gay and there is a percentage of people who choose to be gay and that the percentage of each is not 100%. You assert that the percentages are 100% and 0% respectively. No rounding, just the absolute percentage. Until you have some evidence that absolutely proves 100%, then I think my position is the more reasonable between the two of us.

What is your agenda?
I already responded to your equivocation argument, days ago, in post 265. Here it is again.
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.

So please, understand that a definition with two meanings is not necessarily defining the same thing. You can quote the dictionary, but you need to know how to read it too. :)

As for Cynthia Nixon, she is bisexual. Not because I say so, but because she says so.. In her own words: "While I don't often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have 'chosen' is to be in a gay relationship." So again, your argument crumbles.

I understand your assertion. You just have given me nothing to suggest it is true. If you had some evidence that people chose to be gay, then your position would be reasonable. But the current situation is mountains of evidence suggesting sexual orientation is not a choice, and zero evidence that it is. Given that, I don't find your position reasonable at all. It seems to be grounded in an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
 
Then I guess you just had zero point to make and were just nitpicking about unimportant facts. Whether they were born that way, or became that way, the end result is the same, nothing suggests they "decided" to be gay one day.

You are mistaken since I didnt make such a claim. I just disputed your claim that there isnt a possibility of a person making a decision about their sexuality or lifestyle. I made zero claims about how many people or that every gay person can make a change in their sexuality. You can call it nit picking or unimportant facts but to some people the ability to choose is not unimportant. Personally I dont really care what consenting adults do and personally I support gay marriage. Because who am I to say what other adults want to do with their lives? But mostly because I have friends (and a brother in law) that are gay and cannot think of a reason why they shouldnt be able to get married.

Sure for some it may not be a choice but on the other hand for some it is a choice. And there isnt anything stopping any heterosexual person from one day declaring that they are now going to be gay. Are you going to tell them that they cant? Same with gay people are you telling them that they cannot become not gay? If a individual feels that they cannot become something that they are not then that is their deal, and no one can change that. But if a person feels that they can change then that is also their deal and no one can change that either.
 
You are mistaken since I didnt make such a claim. I just disputed your claim that there isnt a possibility of a person making a decision about their sexuality or lifestyle. I made zero claims about how many people or that every gay person can make a change in their sexuality. You can call it nit picking or unimportant facts but to some people the ability to choose is not unimportant. Personally I dont really care what consenting adults do and personally I support gay marriage. Because who am I to say what other adults want to do with their lives? But mostly because I have friends (and a brother in law) that are gay and cannot think of a reason why they shouldnt be able to get married.

Sure for some it may not be a choice but on the other hand for some it is a choice. And there isnt anything stopping any heterosexual person from one day declaring that they are now going to be gay. Are you going to tell them that they cant? Same with gay people are you telling them that they cannot become not gay? If a individual feels that they cannot become something that they are not then that is their deal, and no one can change that. But if a person feels that they can change then that is also their deal and no one can change that either.

Yep, you got me. By arguing that homosexuality isn't a choice, I was wanting to use government goons to force them to stay gay. Way to crack the case wide open, chief.
 
I already responded to your equivocation argument, days ago, in post 265. Here it is again.


So please, understand that a definition with two meanings is not necessarily defining the same thing. You can quote the dictionary, but you need to know how to read it too. :)

As for Cynthia Nixon, she is bisexual. Not because I say so, but because she says so.. In her own words: "While I don't often use the word, the technically precise term for my orientation is bisexual. I believe bisexuality is not a choice, it is a fact. What I have 'chosen' is to be in a gay relationship." So again, your argument crumbles.

I understand your assertion. You just have given me nothing to suggest it is true. If you had some evidence that people chose to be gay, then your position would be reasonable. But the current situation is mountains of evidence suggesting sexual orientation is not a choice, and zero evidence that it is. Given that, I don't find your position reasonable at all. It seems to be grounded in an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Your calling the definition an equivocation is a reach. By the definition, anyone who engages is homosexual acts is a homosexual is hardly an equivocation, unless of course, your views of homosexuality have a purity test. That is your agenda, is it not?

I expressed my beliefs and explained my logic. You, however, state your beliefs as fact and cite studies which at best, provide directional indications. Nothing is proven in those studies, but it supports your point of view, so that is good enough for you. I don't mock your beliefs. I mock your raising your beliefs to the level of fact and then pointing out that I don't have evidence. I also make no appeal for others to accept my beliefs.

The same is true for my belief that there exists life on other planets. There is some suggestion that there are millions of planets where the environmental conditions are similar to Earth. On that basis, I believe that there is life on at least 1 of those other planets. I'm sure you find my position on life on other plants to be unreasonable as well. That is fine too.

I'll engage you no further.
 
Your calling the definition an equivocation is a reach. By the definition, anyone who engages is homosexual acts is a homosexual is hardly an equivocation, unless of course, your views of homosexuality have a purity test. That is your agenda, is it not?

I expressed my beliefs and explained my logic. You, however, state your beliefs as fact and cite studies which at best, provide directional indications. Nothing is proven in those studies, but it supports your point of view, so that is good enough for you. I don't mock your beliefs. I mock your raising your beliefs to the level of fact and then pointing out that I don't have evidence. I also make no appeal for others to accept my beliefs.

The same is true for my belief that there exists life on other planets. There is some suggestion that there are millions of planets where the environmental conditions are similar to Earth. On that basis, I believe that there is life on at least 1 of those other planets. I'm sure you find my position on life on other plants to be unreasonable as well. That is fine too.

I'll engage you no further.
Your equivocating. A mouse is defined as a timid person. When I say that mice are furry animals that live outside, and you say that is not true because some mice are actually people, you would be equivocating by conflating definitions. That is exactly what you are doing with the term homosexual.

Your logic is fallacious. I cite studies, you cite nothing. You cite planets that have life conditions similar to earth. That is perfectly reasonable. With regards to homosexuality, you have cited nothing. So you have no basis in your reasoning other than bias. Please, show me studies that point in the direction that homosexuality is a choice. Why is this so hard for you to do? Is it because no such studies exist?
 
Yep, you got me. By arguing that homosexuality isn't a choice, I was wanting to use government goons to force them to stay gay. Way to crack the case wide open, chief.
WTF are you talking about? Where did that come from? :confused: I wasnt getting you dude, it was just conversation.
 
For some its a choice and for some it may not be. But whats the difference? Does a pedophile have a choice? Does a kleptomaniac?
 
It's as much of a choice as heterosexuality.
 
Back
Top Bottom