• 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
No need, you have conceded that this is the case by saying this is "nothing new", in reference to the examples.

Incorrect. I demonstrated that your complaints about textbooks including advancements from ANY minority group is nothing new. This does not indicate intention to indoctrinate. Therefore, you have failed and need to prove intentions to indoctrinate with reliable sources.

Go.

This makes my point. thank you

Actually it doesn't since we are discussing homosexuality not transsexuality. Do try to stick to the topic.

not all, some. Which show that someone draws a moral line between what should and shouldn't be in the schools. This makes my point.

No, we see it with minority groups that tend to continue to have discrimination towards them. Not a moral issue, an informational issue. Your point is, once again, invalidated.

yes it is

Good. And your perception is irrelevant to facts.

Wow. now this is one of the clearest statements of discriminatory thinking I have seen in this entire thread. And again makes my point

Actually, it proves your point wrong... and if you believe it's discriminatory, then you do not understand what I said. But let's see if you can demonstrate how what I said is discriminatory. Now, remember... we are focusing on presenting facts. How is presenting information, regardless of whether that information violates the sensibilities of some, discriminatory.

exactly, but it serves to show your own moral lines exist.

No, it is as I said. Has nothing do to with homosexuality. Your red herring CONTINUES to render your position invalid.

You probably didn't read this entire thread, but you should know that the whole advocacy within schools issue was brought up in the context of who should draw the moral lines and what should they be for the society at large, which produces societal norms.

No, I've been involved in the thread since the beginning. Though I haven't posted the entire time, I've read it.

This came about because someone commented that religious people needed for HSex to be a choice in order to justify discrimination. My answer was to battle this false accusation and is consistent, each family should draw there own moral lines and public institutions should stay out of that business, because invariably someone will charge discrimination. Advocates on this site want governmental intrusion in this arena because they feel that they have been discriminated against and therefore welcome added protections, besides public institutional power is currently on there side. However as you have shown so unwittingly, that everyone has their own moral sensibilities and therefore society is open to divisions at every turn. Given this, where should governmental institutions draw their lines while maintaining equal protection? They cannot and should not. All this to say that a personal moral line is not equal to discrimination.

Your error is the same error that many on your side of the issue make. You confuse morals with information. Here is information: homosexuality is a normal variant of sexual orientation. If you want to promote the opposite, you are promoting morals which have no place in public schools. Here is morals: homosexuality is a good sexual orientation to have. Promoting this or the opposite promotes morals and values and has no place in public education. What you have done is what most who argue on your side of the issue do: confuse morals and information, most likely because you don't like the information. I'm glad I could clear this up for you.
 
Incorrect. I demonstrated that your complaints about textbooks including advancements from ANY minority group is nothing new. This does not indicate intention to indoctrinate. Therefore, you have failed and need to prove intentions to indoctrinate with reliable sources.

Go.



Actually it doesn't since we are discussing homosexuality not transsexuality. Do try to stick to the topic.



No, we see it with minority groups that tend to continue to have discrimination towards them. Not a moral issue, an informational issue. Your point is, once again, invalidated.



Good. And your perception is irrelevant to facts.



Actually, it proves your point wrong... and if you believe it's discriminatory, then you do not understand what I said. But let's see if you can demonstrate how what I said is discriminatory. Now, remember... we are focusing on presenting facts. How is presenting information, regardless of whether that information violates the sensibilities of some, discriminatory.



No, it is as I said. Has nothing do to with homosexuality. Your red herring CONTINUES to render your position invalid.



No, I've been involved in the thread since the beginning. Though I haven't posted the entire time, I've read it.



Your error is the same error that many on your side of the issue make. You confuse morals with information. Here is information: homosexuality is a normal variant of sexual orientation. If you want to promote the opposite, you are promoting morals which have no place in public schools. Here is morals: homosexuality is a good sexual orientation to have. Promoting this or the opposite promotes morals and values and has no place in public education. What you have done is what most who argue on your side of the issue do: confuse morals and information, most likely because you don't like the information. I'm glad I could clear this up for you.

I couldn't make my points any more clear, so as for you and in summary your moral sensibilities are right and anyone who opposes your view is not only wrong they are bigots. I see.
 
To those of you who voted "Yes" that it is a choice to be gay - homosexual, I have one question.

When did you choose to be straight - heterosexual?

If choosing your sexual orientation is a choice then being heterosexual is a choice. In my case, there was no choosing, heterosexuality was natural for me...no decisions needed. If you had to choose to be heterosexual, was it a hard decision? Did you have to experiment to help you make your decision? Please inform us on how you made your decision, what were the factors in leading you to your decision.
 
I guess I can't understand inconsistent rhetoric either. End.

A sexual act is and should always be a choice between two people.

Being attracted to someone sexually is not a choice.

There is nothing inconsistent about it, you just refuse to understand the difference.
 
A sexual act is and should always be a choice between two people.

Being attracted to someone sexually is not a choice.

There is nothing inconsistent about it, you just refuse to understand the difference.

I think you know very little about attraction, habit formation, and how emotional states are attended to and strengthened.
 
Last edited:
To those of you who voted "Yes" that it is a choice to be gay - homosexual, I have one question.

When did you choose to be straight - heterosexual?

If choosing your sexual orientation is a choice then being heterosexual is a choice. In my case, there was no choosing, heterosexuality was natural for me...no decisions needed. If you had to choose to be heterosexual, was it a hard decision? Did you have to experiment to help you make your decision? Please inform us on how you made your decision, what were the factors in leading you to your decision.

I say "Learned behavior" and that is not equivalent to making a conscious choice.
 
To those of you who voted "Yes" that it is a choice to be gay - homosexual, I have one question.

When did you choose to be straight - heterosexual?

If choosing your sexual orientation is a choice then being heterosexual is a choice. In my case, there was no choosing, heterosexuality was natural for me...no decisions needed. If you had to choose to be heterosexual, was it a hard decision? Did you have to experiment to help you make your decision? Please inform us on how you made your decision, what were the factors in leading you to your decision.

those people that said yes are clueless about this topic

also the poll should be public id bet large money that its not 42 true votes.
 
I think you know very little about attraction, habit formation, and how emotional states are attended to and strengthened.

I don't think you understand how attraction works in human sexuality. Habit formation has nothing to do with sexual attraction; you can fake it all you want but that isn't real attraction.
 
I don't think you understand how attraction works in human sexuality. Habit formation has nothing to do with sexual attraction; you can fake it all you want but that isn't real attraction.

I don't think anyone knows for certain what is at the base of sexual attraction. We do know that certain aspects of attraction are learned behavior, we also know that attractions are intensified in a developmental process. Other than that It's uncertain.
 
I don't think anyone knows for certain what is at the base of sexual attraction. We do know that certain aspects of attraction are learned behavior, we also know that attractions are intensified in a developmental process. Other than that It's uncertain.

No they aren't and no they do not. Which is not the same as sexual acts of choice which is what you were referring too.
 
No they aren't and no they do not. Which is not the same as sexual acts of choice which is what you were referring too.

OK, if that's what you want to think, fine. You might want to do some reading on the subject though, you may learn something.
 
On the contrary, I read your posts. That perfectly mocks your position.

What is also funny is you can't figure out that transgendered =/= homosexuality

I never equated the two in any way. This entire line of discussion was to show that everyone has their own moral lines of what they believe to be right or wrong. To disagree with someone else's moral line does not make one discriminatory or bigoted. It's a shame that I spent a lot of time successfully making that point, in order to get past the name calling and mocking and have a serious discussion, only to have you come along and start the uninformed and useless mocking again.
 
I never equated the two in any way.

Actually you did just that.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/164760-homosexuality-choice-118.html#post1062327992

You followed your initial claim of the "gay agenda" with transgendered current events, even though the two are unrelated.

This entire line of discussion was to show that everyone has their own moral lines of what they believe to be right or wrong. To disagree with someone else's moral line does not make one discriminatory or bigoted.

It does when the arguments being made to support one's moral code are in fact discriminatory or bigoted. The last scene in that little video is the real gay agenda. Two gay married guys eating breakfast together as a legal couple. What scares you about that so much you have to equate things unrelated to it to scare others?

It's a shame that I spent a lot of time successfully making that point, in order to get past the name calling and mocking and have a serious discussion, only to have you come along and start the uninformed and useless mocking again.

Merely because you think you did that does not make it so. I see plenty of people before me all attacking you on your arguments. Perhaps you think you aren't promoting a discriminatory or bigoted argument when in fact you are. It's not that your against homosexuality that's the problem, it's how you go about it.
 
OK, if that's what you want to think, fine. You might want to do some reading on the subject though, you may learn something.

I'm not the one that doesn't understand the difference between sexual attraction and a sexual act.

Those are two very different things, only one is a choice.
 
I say "Learned behavior" and that is not equivalent to making a conscious choice.

I dont quite agree with you on that.

Through out history there have always been heterosexual and homosexuals...and homosexuality hasnt been taught in schools, was shunned & denigrated by society for centuries, made illegal in some countries.

If anything through out history, heterosexuality is what has been pushed as learned behavior.

I truly believe that homosexuality is not a choice, its a born in trait. We have all had those kids we grew up with who were a little "different" (for the lack of a better word) who, later in life, wound up coming out the closet.

Friends of my wife and mine have a son, in his early 20's now, all of us knew he was "different" growing up...he now lives with his boyfriend and is happy.
 
I dont quite agree with you on that.

Through out history there have always been heterosexual and homosexuals...and homosexuality hasnt been taught in schools, was shunned & denigrated by society for centuries, made illegal in some countries.

If anything through out history, heterosexuality is what has been pushed as learned behavior.

I truly believe that homosexuality is not a choice, its a born in trait. We have all had those kids we grew up with who were a little "different" (for the lack of a better word) who, later in life, wound up coming out the closet.

Friends of my wife and mine have a son, in his early 20's now, all of us knew he was "different" growing up...he now lives with his boyfriend and is happy.

I'm not basing my "learned behavior theory on school lessons, although it's possible too. I'm basing it on neurological development with environment and attention impacting that development.
 
I'm not basing my "learned behavior theory on school lessons, although it's possible too. I'm basing it on neurological development with environment and attention impacting that development.

if we use that stream of thought it still doesnt account for the past...

In the past homosexuality was hidden from public, it was frowned upon, denigrated and made to be shameful...yet there was still homosexuality. Its illegal in Russia and a death sentence in the middle east, yet there are still homosexuals in those areas.

If it is learned behavior, where are they learning it from in those areas?
If it is learned behavior, wouldnt anti-homosexual laws deter homosexual behavior? If it isnt in the environment you cant learn from it...am I right?

There was homosexuality in Biblical times...was there a strong homosexual environment to learn from then?
 
those people that said yes are clueless about this topic

also the poll should be public id bet large money that its not 42 true votes.

yeah especially considering it was almost unanimously 'No' for a while, IIRC. Even saying sexuality might be fluid for some and that it's a *choice* of all things, is completely different. I would be curious to see how many 'Yes' in a "Is heterosexuality a choice?" poll
 
yeah especially considering it was almost unanimously 'No' for a while, IIRC. Even saying sexuality might be fluid for some and that it's a *choice* of all things, is completely different. I would be curious to see how many 'Yes' in a "Is heterosexuality a choice?" poll

yep thats nother thing people over look.

in discussion of SEXUAL ORIENTATION they cant be separated, so if one is a choice so is the other :shrug:

just like when somebody makes the meaningless statement there is no gay gene, if thats the case there is no straight gene

the desperation to separate it is hilarious.
 
I'm not basing my "learned behavior theory on school lessons, although it's possible too. I'm basing it on neurological development with environment and attention impacting that development.

There have been studies going back decades where researchers could predict whether a kid would end up gay, with high accuracy (about 75%), by age 6-7. So where is a kid that age "learning" to like people of either sex exclusively, when they aren't even attracted to anyone yet?
 
I'm not basing my "learned behavior theory on school lessons, although it's possible too. I'm basing it on neurological development with environment and attention impacting that development.

Imnukingfutz brings up a very interesting point. If homosexuality is learned why is it only learned by a few people? In the case of siblings, let's say both siblings are boys why is it that if one is homosexual the other is not? If they learned it, from where did they learn it?

This really plays more at a disposition than a learned behavior.
 
Imnukingfutz brings up a very interesting point. If homosexuality is learned why is it only learned by a few people? In the case of siblings, let's say both siblings are boys why is it that if one is homosexual the other is not? If they learned it, from where did they learn it?

This really plays more at a disposition than a learned behavior.

Why would one be more into sports and the other not, even if both are straight, or even both gay for that matter? Growing up in the same environment does not result in the same results for different siblings even when they are twins. The age difference could be a factor in the "learning". And I will stress what the originator of the thought in this thread said (can't remember off the top who it was): by being "learned" early on it's so ingrained that it's not a choice. That makes it a different factor than genetics or pre-birth disposition.
 
Why would one be more into sports and the other not, even if both are straight, or even both gay for that matter? Growing up in the same environment does not result in the same results for different siblings even when they are twins. The age difference could be a factor in the "learning". And I will stress what the originator of the thought in this thread said (can't remember off the top who it was): by being "learned" early on it's so ingrained that it's not a choice. That makes it a different factor than genetics or pre-birth disposition.

How is it learned?
 
How is it learned?

Observation. There is much that we learn through our senses, especially in our early years, and we are not even conscious of it. We will know things and never ever remember "learning" it. Do you remember learning to walk? Even as adults, we take in input without realizing it that can affect out thoughts, idea, decisions and choices. If you want a better word than "learned", which might imply being taught to you, I'm open to suggestions. But hopefully I've gotten my concept across, yes? Not asking if you agree with it, just was it delivered clearly enough?
 
Back
Top Bottom