Instigator / Pro
16
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Topic
#2824
Resolved: Being Gay is a Choice
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 5 votes and with 16 points ahead, the winner is...
Theweakeredge
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
32
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Description
Definitions:
Gay: (of a human) The sexual orientation of being homosexual, i.e. being attracted to one's own gender
Choice: The act of selecting or making a decision between 2 or more possibilities
Burden of Proof is shared. Con must prove that being Gay is not a choice.
Anyways, Good Luck!
Round 1
Resolution: Being Gay is a Choice
I am using LibreOffice to draft my documents again since I want to have a base as strong as I would desire, despite that there is a large chance the S&G quality will go down due to the software’s flaw. (Note, the argument was proofread beforehand and it showed none of those flaws in the editing phase, so if words still connect, it is the site's fault) (The words connected for some reason even though none of those passed when I copy-pasted, there must be something wrong with the site's formatting)
Round 1: Interpretation of the Definition
I have defined my terms in the descriptions, and of course, Gay, also known as Homosexual, is defined as a sexual orientation. The definition of Sexual Orientation is shown in this source[1].
The term Gay is strictly down to the usage of humans, so any homosexual behaviors between other organisms are to be ruled out.
The term “Choice” is also pre-defined as an act of selecting or making a decision between 2 or more possibilities. “Choose” is defined as “to select freely and after consideration, to decide, to have preference over”[2]. In other words, when one person can choose to do something, the person selected and decided, and that “something” is a choice. If one can choose to be gay, being gay is a choice.
The Burden of Proof is to be shared equally among the contestants and the opposing side is obligated to prove that the state of being homosexual is in fact, not a choice, according to the definitions provided.
Sexual orientation is defined as, “a person’s sexual identity or self-identification of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc, or the state of being homosexual, bisexual, etc”, by authentic sources[1].
So, when it all comes down, being gay, or being homosexual, comes down on either one of those two criteria:
- The person identifies himself/herself/themself(whatever the pronoun) as homosexual, i.e. having attractions to the same gender as said person
- The person IS attracted to his/her/their gender
Identity
Within this part of the definition, how a person identifies itself is obviously a choice, the same with whether a US citizen that has heritage from the UK, Spain and Mexico chooses whether to identify oneself as American, British, Spanish or Mexican. At the end of day, it all comes down to however one chooses to represent oneself with. Identifying as homosexual is, in fact, a choice regarding how to represent oneself with.
Straight Phases
This is a commonly-known term between many LGBTQ+ members. Many people had straight phases where they thought they weren’t gay, and were, instead, straight, before they came out out of the closet as homosexual. Here is an example[3].
Since people have identified themselves as heterosexual, then as homosexual, it means their sexual orientation has changed and thus isn’t completely defined by their genes. It means they have room of identifying as homosexual or heterosexual, etc. It means they chose to identify as Homosexual after choosing to identify as straight.
Chose to Love
Before people had a sense of gender, they were identified as agender or non-binary, because babies do not understand the differences of boys and girls until age one[4]. They simply do not know whether to categorize themselves as a boy or a girl or whatever.
Commonsense, before kids learn what love is, they weren’t romantically attracted to anyone(mom doesn’t count!). Before kids hit puberty, they wouldn’t be sexually attracted to anyone[5].So it is logically justified to conclude that when kids are born, they are identified as agender, asexual and aromantic, because they don’t identify themselves as of any gender nor as attracted to any group in general.
Based on basic common sense, being gay is obviously a choice since at one point of their childhood(or even adulthood), they discovered that they actually love the same gender, when before they loved no one or someone of the opposite gender.
Sociology concludes that the reason people get attracted to each other is due to various traits[6].There are social acceptable traits for one to be “hot”. One can easily fall in love with a hot personality, whereas one would have a hard time dating with a hideous and rotten individual. In the end, one chose to love another individual based on personal preferences. The sexual orientations could definitely be a preference(say, a heterosexual individual would prefer to fall in love with a person in the different gender, whereas a homosexual would prefer to fall in love with the same gender), and until then, the top priority of one’s relationship, in 2021, is probably not making babies, since a considerable amount of people in the US says that making babies is not on their priority list currently[7].The fact one would follow a relationship today would be, well, fall in love with each other and bond a special relationship that is supposed to last a lifetime if nothing goes wrong, and the priority would be having qualities that will help them build a stable relationship, obviously. The fact men can be feminine and women can be masculine and all that other affair going on would mean that both women and men(and even nonbinary individuals) would be possible to have at least one candidate for one’s relationship preferences.
A woman could satisfy almost everything another heterosexual woman desires for a lifelong relationship, except for being male. Since all they are looking for is stable relationship, and queer sex exists[8],a woman, who has only dated men before and was satisfied at at least one relationship before before breaking up(fun fact, straight couples would have a larger chance of breaking up[9])and was a heterosexual individual before this date, could choose to love this woman which is everything she ever wanted, minus being a man.
To clear the bisexuality confusion, said woman could easily rule out any man from dating her again because this woman is the best person she had ever met and had built a stable relationship more stable than any relationship she has built with a man before. Then, said woman would be homosexual, or lesbian.
Hypothetically, one can choose to love another individual even if the properties of the mate goes against the prior identification. One could be homosexual just because one loved another one and the relationship counted as homosexual. So what? If an alpha-male and trad-wife combination of the conservatives with neither one cheating whatsoever counts as a heterosexual relationship, then a woman who refused to love another man because she found ONE better woman to love counts as a lesbian or homosexual relationship. She chose to love another woman. Homosexuality is a choice.
The Gender Kritik
Considering one can just shift genders(not sex) by their mind[10]because they really felt like something that isn’t their current gender, a transgender who just felt different in themselves but not about who they loved could be transitioned to homosexuality, since they would now be transferred into a different gender and their lover could be now in the same gender as said person did, as opposed to opposite before.
In the end, you don’t even need to change your lover to go from heterosexual to homosexual if you felt uncomfortable being represented by your current biological sex, because then your lover would be in your same gender, should it be your opposite gender before transitioning.
With this scenario which definitely could happen, the idea of transitioning gender would make homosexuality a choice, as when they decided transition into another gender identity, their relationship with their lover would automatically become a homosexual relationship, should the other accepts the validness of such decision.
In the end, loving whoever you love is a choice. Being attracted towards someone the same gender as you do is a choice. Being homosexual is a choice.
Debunking the Genetics Argument
It is a commonly-held belief that genetics would make one to be homosexual and one is born with it. That, however, is not completely the case, as in humans, the genes that are reported to make people gay, are only more likely to make people gay, instead of it setting in stone. The term used in the article is “having great influence on…” instead of “definitely”[11], which means that it isn’t set in stone.
The conclusion? The person with this gene would have a larger chance of being attracted to one’s same gender, but to whoever you love, you can technically still be attracted to someone on the opposite sex.
What is worth noting in [11] is a sentence which I regard completely absurd. “If being gay is truly a choice, then people who attempt to change their orientation should be able to do so. But most people who are gay describe it as a deeply ingrained attraction that can't simply be shut off or redirected.”
The problem with this quote is that it only signifies that transitioning from gay to straight is difficult, but not impossible. It is yet to be debunked that some people went from their straight phases to being queer[3], so it just means that changing the sexual orientation is just difficult, not impossible.
More than that, I can make analogies that will nullify this argument. According to the logic presented on the article:
- Smoking is not a choice, because if it is, then people would quit it whenever attempted to. Instead, smokers have experienced that it is actually really hard to quit smoking, it can’t simply be shut off or redirected like that.
- Ordering fast food regularly is not a choice, because then people would quit it whenever attempted to. Instead, obese people found out that they can’t simply be shut off or redirected fast food.
- Debating is not a choice, because I can’t quit it when I wanted to, and would return to it sooner or later(that is not a bad thing, actually). I can’t just shut my passion of debating off or redirect it like that.
See? Many things that are easily lifestyle choices are not choices according to this logic. Being gay is a lifestyle. It means loving a certain group of people that you want to love. Being gay is a choice, although a difficult one to change. Being gay depends on not how you are born, but who you choose to attract towards, which is a choice.
And whatever I have quoted is an article supporting the stand point “Being gay is not a choice”. The arguments made by the article have been flipped on its own head. I rest my case.
Conclusions
- Being gay is how you perceive yourself, which you can identify yourself as gay at any time.
- People have changed their sexual orientation to homosexual in the history of internet.
- People have changed their sexual orientation to homosexual in the history of internet.
- Being gay is also the fact of being homosexual, which is dependent on who you love, which could change in gender based on your other preferences outside gender.
- Babies are born asexual. It all comes to who you meet and love later on in life.
- Being attracted to someone the same gender as one does is a choice. Being gay is a choice.
- Babies are born asexual. It all comes to who you meet and love later on in life.
- One could choose to change one’s gender while being in a heterosexual relationship, which makes the relationship homosexual.
- Homosexuality in humans is not completely dependent on genes, and is dependent on who you are attracted to eventually.
- Homosexuality is choice, although a hard one to change. It is just a choice, like smoking, ordering fast food, or debating. It is basically a lifestyle of being attracted to a group of people.
- Homosexuality is choice, although a hard one to change. It is just a choice, like smoking, ordering fast food, or debating. It is basically a lifestyle of being attracted to a group of people.
- Existing examples have shown that people chose to be gay. In the end, being gay is a choice.
Sources
[5]https://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/160335-at-what-age-do-people-start-feeling-sexual-attraction/
Note the Wikipedia articles serve as hubs to more authentic sources.
I rest my case. It is all yours, Con.
RESOLUTION: Being gay is a choice
POSITION: Con
DEFINITIONS:
Proposed Definition:
- Gay - "(of a human) The sexual orientation of being homosexual, i.e. being attracted to one's own gender"
Source - Merriam Webster
Definition - Rejected. The definition does not fit any of the definitions listed at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gay/ Furthermore, the dictionary being used is unprofessional regarding scholarly argument in favor of the definition:
Suggested Replacement:
- Gay - ". adj. denoting individuals, especially males, who are sexually attracted to and aroused by members of their own sex." [A]
Source - American Psychological Association Dictionary/APA Dictionary
The definition is precisely preserved from the material (APA) that it was sourced from, furthermore, the APA is "the leading scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States, with more than 122,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students as its members." [A-1]
Proposed Definition:
- Choice - " The act of selecting or making a decision between 2 or more possibilities"
Source - Merriam Webster
Definition Rejected. The definition is listed under "other definitions of choice": https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/choose/ Furthermore, the dictionary being used is unprofessional regarding scholarly argument in favor of the definition
Suggested Replacement:
- Choice - "an act or the possibility of choosing:" [B]
Source - Cambridge Dictionary
The definition is precisely copied from the Cambridge Dictionary, furthermore, the CD is a more valid source of definitions considering the scholarly basis behind the universities definitions, giving precise examples of suggested usage, and providing other common definitions for such words
- Choose - "to decide what you want from two or more things or possibilities:" [C]
- Being - "the state of existing:" [D]
- Identify - "to recognize someone or something and say or prove who or what that person or thing is:" [E]
- Love - "n. a complex emotion involving strong feelings of affection and tenderness for the love object, pleasurable sensations in his or her presence, devotion to his or her well-being, and sensitivity to his or her reactions to oneself.." [F]
INTERPRETING THE RESOLUTION:
What is this debate? Whether being attracted to males is a choice. What are we not debating? Whether acting on gay "feelings" is a choice. The resolution cited precisely: "Resolved: Being gay is a choice" Cross-referencing the definition of "Being": "The state of existing" therefore the resolution could be restated as: "The state of existing as gay is a choice". The fact that the resolution says: "Being" gay gives the voters clear reason to avoid such arguments on the matter of "acting gay" because that is not topical. I would ask that Pro acknowledge the fact that his definitions are not sufficient for the debate, or provide a valid reason to continue with the usage of his definitions.
- I must only demonstrate that existing as gay is not a choice, not behaving in a gay manner
- Any argument's by Pro relying on gay behavior to demonstrate it is a choice is inherently untopical
REBUTTAL I - IDENTITY.
First of all, let's recall the definition of Identity above for context regarding the following arguments: "to recognize someone or something and say or prove who or what that person or thing is". This would mean that "identifying" as homosexual or gay, is not a choice, it is to recognize that you are gay, and say that you are. Pro's argument claiming that this is "obviously" a choice is a fundamental misunderstanding of A) what it means to identify yourself as something, and B) what sexuality is. Let's say that you are Abraham Lincoln. You are a newly self-educated lawyer talking to a rather in-the-know lady who got your fancy. Oh... you like her, I suppose I'm straight.
That scenario has ended in you identifying yourself as straight. A question for the voters; did you just choose to be straight? Let's check the definition provided in "Definitions" and compare what just happened to the definition and see it applies. "to decide what you want from two or more things or possibilities:" Well... what were the two possibilities? I suppose in this instance it would be if you are "gay" or "straight", and look, Pro even anticipated this dichotomy and tried (the operative word there really being tried) to analyze how "Straight phases" demonstrate that there is a choice. Except, Pro is decisively incorrect with their assertions.
"Since people have identified themselves as heterosexual, then as homosexual, it means their sexual orientation has changed and thus isn’t completely defined by their genes. It means they have room of identifying as homosexual or heterosexual, etc. It means they chose to identify as Homosexual after choosing to identify as straight."
I wouldn't disagree that the phenomena happen, in fact, it's happened to me. Here's the thing Pro and voters: believing that you are straight because a straight-laced society built up an image of sexuality in your head does not actually mean that you are straight. For further comprehension, let's use another example. Say that you claim your favorite food to be pizza, but one day you taste a sort of food you had never had before. You like this food more than pizza, and it becomes your new favorite food. Did you just choose for your taste buds to start liking that food more? Well no, of course not. You literally can't choose that.
Furthermore, let's say that your entire life pizza has been modeled as the core food, it's what everybody likes, and if you like that other food you're trash, or at the least barely tolerated by most people. Then actually tasting that other food would be even less likely, no? This is one of the major reasons why so many gay people have "straight phases" in their childhood. However, it is also affected by becoming aware of the fact that you are gay. Sometimes people just don't know and assume they're straight, because that is what everybody else is. It's a normal reaction [1]. It should be made aware to voters that Pro is ignorantly asserting things that have hurt and oppressed people for decades [2]
The only "research" that Pro did into the "straight phase" was a single article in the form of a long-form poem...
REBUTTAL II - CHOOSE_TO_LOVE.
Based on basic common sense, being gay is obviously a choice since at one point of their childhood(or even adulthood), they discovered that they actually love the same gender, when before they loved no one or someone of the opposite gender.
No.... they discovered that they were gay, that word does not imply choice as Pro seems to think it does. It's like discovering that you enjoy Doctor Pepper, you don't choose to enjoy drinking it.
Hypothetically, one can choose to love another individual even if the properties of the mate goes against the prior identification. One could be homosexual just because one loved another one and the relationship counted as homosexual.
1. "Hypothetically". That is simply not the case - if you turn your attention to the definition of gay "denoting individuals, especially males, who are sexually attracted to and aroused by members of their own sex" - you cannot choose to be attracted to somebody of the opposite gender, because you do not choose who you are attracted to. "Love" is a huge red herring that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You can be heteroromantic and homosexual at the same time, they mean different things. [3]
"Sexual orientation and romantic orientation are deeply intertwined for most people. A person may be physically attracted to and may be sexually intimate with someone that they are not romantically attracted to (or "in love with"). A person may also have a loving and romantic attraction to someone who they are not physically attracted to."
However, just as you do not choose whether you are sexually attracted to a person, you do not choose if you are romantically attracted to them - it is true that certain traits make a partner more or less appealing, but those traits are ultimately under your sexuality. A smart and hardworking woman would be a friend to a gay man, while a smart and hardworking man would be a partner [4]. That entire long paragraph in this section by Pro? That is all a red herring, or at the very best for pro not topical, because it is unrelated to the resolution. Love and sexual attraction are not the same thing [Recall definition of Love] [5].
REBUTTAL III - THE GENDER KRITIK.
"Considering one can just shift genders(not sex) by their mind"
Untrue. Furthermore, the source which Pro cites does not support this claim, instead, it simply discusses the difference between gender and sex. Had Pro read it, he would know this:
"But for people who are trans and gender non-conforming, the sex they’re assigned at birth may not align with the gender they know themselves to be. They may identify with a different sex than what they were assigned at birth."
You see - there's that word again - "identify" which means: "to recognize someone or something and say or prove who or what that person or thing is:" Therefore these people are not "shifting their gender with their minds", it means that they recognize that they are not the gender they were assigned at birth. It's literally in the quotes above. It's quite sad, it seems that Pro has just randomly searched up articles, vaguely relating to the subject and then sourced them to make a strong sources list at the bottom. The rest of this section is irrelevant because A) It has nothing to do with the resolution, and B) it is all built off of a misunderstanding of how gender is.
REBUTTAL IV - GENETICS ARGUMENT.
That, however, is not completely the case, as in humans, the genes that are reported to make people gay, are only more likely to make people gay, instead of it setting in stone. The term used in the article is “having great influence on…” instead of “definitely”[11], which means that it isn’t set in stone.
First of all - that would mean that your BoP: "Being gay is a choice" is only possibly true; however according to you the evidence says that it is most likely that being gay is entirely based on genetics, which would inherently mean that being gay isn't a choice. Pro essentially sells out his own argument here, except for tiny little things, I would agree- genetics only account for 25% of what makes up sexual orientation [6]. This is because sexual orientation is caused by a complex blend of genetics, psychology, and the culture around us [4]. We do not choose any of the things that happen to us, nor our psychology, however, so it doesn't actually make a difference in the state resolution.
"What is worth noting in [11] is a sentence which I regard completely absurd. “If being gay is truly a choice, then people who attempt to change their orientation should be able to do so. But most people who are gay describe it as a deeply ingrained attraction that can't simply be shut off or redirected.”The problem with this quote is that it only signifies that transitioning from gay to straight is difficult, but not impossible. It is yet to be debunked that some people went from their straight phases to being queer[3], so it just means that changing the sexual orientation is just difficult, not impossible."
Again, no. You're resolution: Being gay is a choice, is talking about all or the majority of gay people. Because you simply said, "Being gay", as in, in general. Even if the voters bought the argument that it isn't impossible to "choose" your sexuality, that still does not fulfill your BoP. However, it would be remiss of me to leave it there. Let me restate the last part of the quote: "Deeply ingrained attraction that can't simply be shut off..." Pro has misinterpreted the word "simply" to mean that it can be done with difficulty; however, the context makes it clear that the word "simply" is being used as in "It simply can't be done." which is interpreted to mean, "it can't be done."
As for the things that Pro cites? You actually can't choose to not be addicted to smoking [7]. But that isn't the point, Pro has no evidence that it is: "hard to stop being gay" he misread text, but beyond that, he has nothing. Furthermore - even if we bought that argument - it would not mean that being gay is a choice, only that one could choose to stop being gay. Pro is making absurd arguments and expecting the voters to buy them with little if any substantiation. They do not fulfill his burden of proof in terms of the resolution whatsoever.
CONSTRUCTIVE - BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE
Recall the definition of gay: ". adj. denoting individuals, especially males, who are sexually attracted to and aroused by members of their own sex." The question then, do you choose who you are attracted to? No. No, you do not [8]:
"The biological part of our attraction lies in something called the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) or human leukocyte antigen (HLA) and the going theory is that opposites attract. Put another way, the more different our HLA types are from one another, the more likely we are to find each other attractive. "
PREMISE I: To be gay is to be sexually attracted by members of your own sex
PREMISE II: Being sexually attracted to other individuals is done by major biologic complexes
PREMISE III: Individuals do not choose to have specific biologic complexes
CONCLUSION: Therefore individuals do not choose to be gay
SOURCES - In Comments
Back to Pro
Round 2
After reading my opponent’s definitions, which I agree to be more accurate than mine given, my view on this topic was shifted completely—to that according to proper definitions, being gay indeed isn’t a choice. I apologize for not having any competent rebuttals to counter his arguments and I thank Pro for taking his time to write a sufficiently constructive and organized argument.
I, as the supposed “Pro”, have now accepted that one’s sexual attractions, objectively is set in stone for a given individual and is not to be shifted throughout life as so in the term “choice”. Thank you for reading this.
TLDR: I concede.
Thank you for the concession Pro,
Vote Con
Round 3
Con has successfully convinced me that being gay is not a choice. The end. Nothing more to say.
Pro has conceded
Vote Con
Round 4
I have lost and I have no regrets. Con has rightfully won this debate by convincing me.
Vote Con
"to recognize someone or something and say or prove who or what that person or thing is:"
I personally disagree with your definition of "identify". As I said in my first comment, definitions tend to limit the brevity of how applicable a word can be to generally being in favour of the one using it. To use an example against your definition of "identify": based on your definition of "identify", it should be impossible for someone who is considered "white" to not identify as such (they should have no choice, right?) If not, what is the symmetry breaker between being gay and white? Evidently, someone can choose not to identify as white. Therefore, even through simply observing our own choices and those of others, there's still no proof that your definition is in alignment with how the word identify actually functions in the real world (at least wholly). there's still no proof within it that gay people don't make a choice to even just recognise themselves as gay, just like a white person may do so themselves. To argue there is no flaw in this definition is simply hardcore determinism (arguing no one ever chooses anything). Point in case is that: Pro would need to of rejected your definition all together as it implies determinism, using that definition automatically gives you the win. People treat dictionaries like the bible these days.
-
No amount of sociological studies can prove determinism. I never claimed it was a flaw. You're awfully defensive, i was just pointing out that i think the debate was actually a free will debate.
There is a level of biological as well as sociological determinism yes, i don't see how thats a flaw in my argument.
"You apparently did not actually read my argument, identify means to RECOGNIZE a truth about oneself, in other words - if you were a doctor it would have to do with recognizing the fact that you are a doctor by profession. Please don't straw-man, its dishonest."
"to recognize someone or something and say or prove who or what that person or thing is". This would mean that identifying as homosexual or gay, is not a choice, it is to recognize that you are gay, and say that you are. "
-
A gay person (according to your definition) may not be able to choose whether or not to identify as gay (once they recognize they are gay). Intelligence could have argued that the events leading up to the recognition of them being gay were events under their control (this is what i intended to explain rather poorly). To use an example: there was a time when a doctor wasn't a doctor. Following your own definition, there was a time (before he became a doctor) he couldn't claim to be a doctor. there will be a time in the future where he is a doctor (when he wasn't a doctor). I imagine this pastes 1 to 1 onto your argument for gay people. There may have been a time when a gay person did not recognize or believe they were gay, so he has room to argue for choices that led to them being gay here, just as a doctor made a choice to become a doctor before becoming one.
-
Your argument essentially became an argument for biological determinism. If PRO decided to continue the debate, it would more than likely become a debate on the validity of biological determinism compared to other philosophical models. Point in case: this debate would ended up a discussion on naturalism/free will. I don't think anyone can disprove biological determinism currently, and no one seems to be able to debunk all alternative theories of naturalism and biological determinism either.
-
Although I did, looking back, misunderstand a large part of what you were saying in the identify argument.
You also didn't properly read that, my argument regarding genetics was a rebuttal - the constructive used that as one example of how we do not choose our sexuality, had we gone on, i would have elaborated on the sociological evidence which only gives more and more credence to me.
You apparently did not actually read my argument, identify means to RECOGNIZE a truth about oneself, in other words - if you were a doctor it would have to do with recognizing the fact that you are a doctor by profession. Please don't straw-man, its dishonest.
I wouldn't want to debate him on whether homosexuality is innate or not. I agree with his position, but his reason for why it is genetic is just plain wrong, and his definitions are too narrow to account for all philosophical factors.
Eh, don't know if he is around or anything, but you can always hit someone up for a debate on the same topic, the worst case scenario is they don't accept.
I was in a school(where they confiscate phones and has extremely bad internet) and the best device I could have was a hidden Iphone 5. I simply refuse to read all these whatever it is if I don't have internet connection on my laptop!
How rational would you act in a cave while not being a professional cave explorer? See? I am not the local Wi-fi master.
I'm unsure what to think of CONS definitions. He claims something has to be innate to be part of one's identity. By that definition, a doctor shouldn't believe being a doctor is part of their identity, since he made a choice to be. It's evident to me that we can add things to our identity and self-a posteriori. PRO conceded way too fast.
You gave him way too much respect, Intelligence, probably just simply intimidated by the way he structures his arguments in a strong fashion.
7 days left? Gosh time really flies.
Interesting - you seem to just want to dump a load of sources supporting the case that homosexuals do not choose to be so - while I agree with your conclusion, the act of dumping a bunch of sources is not particularly convincing to your case
Existem diversos fatores:
Diferenciação sexual cerebral em homossexuais:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000689939090350K?subid1=20210215-0119-51a5-afec-2e0a8b5e15fa
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/253/5023/1034?subid1=20210215-0120-3533-9d74-80ff49e9fdd7
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/89/15/7199.full.pdf
https://www.pnas.org/content/102/20/7356?ijkey=e258c78188374b038f5e8fee3047d9c3
https://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403?ijkey=5b36fa29272b658fa66e1325b9cac226
http://www.ajnr.org/content/ajnr/29/10/1890.full.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep41314
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-18372-0
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763416302342?subid1=20210215-0121-05ff-b120-c7fb599a795a
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hbm.20435?subid1=20210215-0121-06e9-a9f1-e5969435680e
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-3695-8_19
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302211000252?via%3Dihub
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000689939090350K?subid1=20210215-0121-02e8-8b25-7e13d93e16b2
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33188-2 (Excitação sexual)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8 (Diferença de Trans e homo)
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/302 (Homossexualidade masculina e responsividade imunológica materna à proteína ligada a Y NLGN4Y)
https://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10531 (Quanto mais novo mais chances de ser gay)
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/24/9968 (Evidências para distintas influências de biodesenvolvimento na orientação sexual masculina)
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/24/9968 (A sinalização da serotonina no cérebro de camundongos fêmeas adultas é necessária para a preferência sexual)
https://www.pnas.org/content/95/5/2709 (Comparação dos sistemas auditivos de heterossexuais e homossexuais: emissões otoacústicas evocadas por clique)
https://www.pnas.org/content/89/15/7199 (Orientação sexual e o tamanho da comissura anterior no cérebro humano)
https://www.pnas.org/content/103/36/13271 (Razões sexuais anormais em populações humanas: causas e consequências)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128159682000050 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128159682000050)
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6257/148 (A epigenética pode explicar o enigma da homossexualidade?) (GENETICA)
Explicação sobre a origem hormonal da orientação sexual:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091302211000252
http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0018506X06001462
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
Stress na gravidez e homossexualidade:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224498809551449
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031938401005649
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/262525?subid1=20210215-0126-1535-997d-522849c367eb
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978044453630300004X?via%3Dihu
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01541353?subid1=20210215-0126-1728-bcca-57978735ed16
Caso do menino canadense que foi criado como menina desde bebê e mesmo assim não se tornou homossexual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
Outro estudo mostrando que a orientação sexual é definida no útero: https://io9.gizmodo.com/scientists-claim-that-homosexuality-is-not-genetic-bu-5967426
Mm, I am indeed a determinist, though I would argue you could choose whether to accept or reject a belief. The point of the matter here is that you do not choose who you are attracted to, everything else is a red herring
I guess you don't believe we choose anything then. I'd say that all suffering is valid unless it is suffering caused by justified mistreatment (going to jail for murder)
You don't choose what you believe bud. Furthermore, it is invalidating their experiences BECAUSE it is not a choice, not in spite of the fact.
Unless you think that oppression of Christians in countries such as Iran is invalid because they "chose" their religion.
That is ridiculous. It would only invalidate it if you think that being gay is bad and therefore merits a negative reaction due to the choice.
for those unfamilar with resolution shifting - sometimes one of the debaters will attempt to take advantage of a definition loophole, each definition is subtly different - that was the case with the definitions presented by Pro - this was the case in the last debate I had with Intelligence - in fact every single debate I've had with Intelligence has had him trying to manipulate the resolution to his burden by terms
Why in round one did con suggest a replacement definition that was exactly the same as the original definition but with different words to say the exact same thing
People don't choose to be gay. Some people believe that they choose to be gay, but psychologically that is not the case - you cannot choose your sexuality
Boom, we're done.
Furthermore, being gay is neutral, it is ammoral. You have provided no substantiation otherwise.
You literally say "that" is not what "that" means after I make like 10 statements between 2 posts. It is impossible to just figure out what "that" means
We weren't discussing if people can choose to be gay. We are discussing the ramifications of that being true or somebody believing that.
I've already explained it - it invalidates all of the oppression that gay people face
I don't feel the need to elaborate - figure it out
Feelings are not made up, people who assume that they can choose to feel something are incorrect - stop it with your false dichotomies
What is not what that means.. please elaborate. I'm confused
Furthermore, no - that is not what that means - you are being obviously obtuse.
Which thing do you "feel" is made up?
If you make up something I say ever again, you will be blocked.
And how does believing that attraction is a choice automatically make you afraid of or hate gay people? I feel like those two things are mutually exclusive.
The point of debate IS to arrive at the truth. Just because someone disagrees with what they're arguing doesn't make their position wrong. Other people might find the arguments convincing.
I thought it was an odd debate topic, but I was interested in seeing what Intel had to say.
The weaker edge
"Attraction is a social construct and it is racist to not be attracted to minorities"
Also weakeredge
"Who you are attracted to is not a choice"
You said nobody would choose to be gay because of the persecution we receive.
You seem to think that we are morally inferior and that the persecution is not worth it.
Persecution is always worth choosing to face, if you are making the right decision. Even if homosexuality is a morally neutral position facing the persecution to help future homos is worth it.
However, we are superior to breeders and therefore if homosexuality is a choice, it is clearly unethical to choose to be straight.
The only significant assertion I saw was this source (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-analysis-reveals) which does not point to a specific component or components that actually determine what gender people are attracted to. Or even what species people are attracted to. What specifically determines (not just possibly influences) this?
Saying that I don't hate straight people does not assume I do hate gay people. Substantiate your position or stop assuming my positions. One or the other.
If you are gay, you need to stop self hating. It's okay to be gay, in fact it is better to be gay and I don't care how anti straight I sound. It is worth any persecution to be gay. We have more happiness than straights, a higher average income than straights, we have the benefit of knowing we are not destroying the environment like breeders do. Even if I wasn't gay naturally, I would absolutely put myself in some sort of Gay bootcamp to pray the heteronormativity away.
The same thing applies - you do not have the substantiation to argue that children suffer more than they feel pleasure - in fact - humanity has been suffering less and less as things go on.
Also... you know I'm gay right? Your pedantic arguments are getting a little annoying.
If you read my argument then you would know the answer to that
I was actually thinking of the environmental impacts of children, and facts do not care about your feelings. You'll just have to accept us gays are morally superior to breeders.
What biological component determines a person sexuality? And not just vaguely appealing to evolution, surveys, or something. What specific component or components determine attraction?
interesting anti-natalist approach, I don't accept it bud.
It works on a presupposition that suffering is worth more negatively than pleasure is positive, which I reject out of a lack of substantiation.
That is where you are wrong. It is ethically superior to be a homosexual. Procreation is immoral and by choosing homosexuality you are actually helping around born kids to live in a better world. Being gay is heroic and should be encouraged.
It is impossible for ANYBODY to choose who you are attracted to by the rules of attraction - that would be you refusing to accept facts
This isn't a "oh, do you know somebody who choose their sexuality" because they are empirically incorrect, perhaps they perceived to have, but it is literally impossible.
This isn't even determinism, this is simple biology. No, not a gene, but how complexes in biology function
I did read the debate, I just disagree that you somehow know the mind of every single person throughout human history who has gone from being homosexual to heterosexual, and whether or not they chose that. That seems a bit presumptuous.
Sexuality isn't a choice - full stop - any psychological authority admits this.
From that perspective - to imply that it was a choice to "Choose their sexuality" There is nothing heroic about choosing to be gay or straight it is ammoral. You can "choose to face persecution" it makes the ones who never choose a thing feel like shit.
Furthermore, I do not think it is possible for ANYBODY to choose their sexuality, regardless of their subjective perspective regarding the matter. Its similar to how somebody might believe that they choose their favorite color; however, it would be more accurate to say they identified their favorite color
I try to avoid reading debates until they are done. You seemed to apply that if homosexuality is a choice, somehow admitting it would be marginalizing the persecution we face. I think if it is a choice, it would make us that choose homosexuality more heroic
All sexuality is, is who you are attracted to - you can be straight and have sex with somebody of the same gender -that does not determine anything -ALL sexuality is referring to is who you are attracted to
There is nothing heroic about being gay or straight - your sexuality implies nothing regarding that factor - the fact of the matter is that you do not choose whether you are attracted to somebody or why you are attracted to somebody - you can choose to accept or reject that attraction (if you ignore determinism), but you do not ultimately choose it.
Though given your route I can assume you might have actually read my argument -
If you read the debate then you would know I already acknowledge that - some people assume they're straight, some people are indoctrinated to persuade themselves that they aren't homosxual, there are a number of reasons - none of them are because you "choose to be gay" that is a non-sequitur
I have known and heard of a number of people who chose to be homosexual. But also a number of people who did not. On balance, It isn't a choice is how it seems.