Instigator / Con
8
1458
rating
12
debates
37.5%
won
Topic
#1201

Is Sexual Orientation determined at birth?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Kikomori
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
14
1495
rating
4
debates
62.5%
won
Description

Is sexual orientation determined at birth? Are LGBTQ people actually who they say they are? Yes.

Debate Format
Round 1: Opening Statements (If you troll, I win)
Round 2: Rebuttals.
Round 3: Rebuttals and Conclusions.

Rules:
1. No religious arguments (e.g. "THE GREAT GOD GATORADE SAID THAT LGBTQ PEOPLE ARE GOOD.")
2. No trolling (As I said before, if you troll, I win.)
3. No cussing (Unless it is in a quote)
4. No insulting (e.g. "YOU SUCK, MY PEEPEE IS SO LARGE IT IS BIGGER THAN YOURS, I WIN and YOU LOSE)
5. No forfeiting
If you break any of these rules, it will either cause me to win the debate, or you to lose a conduct point.

Clarification: I am pro-LGBTQ, but I am not LGBTQ.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Not a straw man. I think you're really talking past me here. We aren't talking about labeling people as gay. We are talking about people actually being gay (same sex attraction=gay). You said that a way to know someone is gay is to see them commit "same-sex actions" or for then to tell us. Then you conceded that straight people can commit these same-sex acts. People can also lie, so these examples you provided are inadequate. My position is that nurture plays a very large role as to whether or not they act on these urges, but nature causes the urges. Urges are what makes someone gay.

-->
@bmdrocks21

>>you're making the claim that being gay is 100% a choice

Strawman? You seriously can't even read.

What I said: I am not saying being gay is a choice. I am saying someone being gay is more of a Nurture thing than Nature.

>>You're saying that until they CHOOSE to tell someone or commit the act, they are not gay.

How would you or the person in question would no?
Can I survive a jump off a cliff if I haven't tested it?

>>Being gay has nothing to do with actions.

We label people based on actions they commit.

>>Someone can be straight and commit same sex acts.

Yes. What is your point?

>>What is your actual disagreement here?

Other then the strawman here you claimed it is 80-90% Nature

You said: I'm more of a 80-90% nature kind of person for most issues

-->
@TheRealNihilist

But the thing is..... I'm not making claims about anyone.

I'm not saying I know anyone is gay without having evidence. However, you're making the claim that being gay is 100% a choice (despite what you said earlier). You're saying that until they CHOOSE to tell someone or commit the act, they are not gay.

Being gay has nothing to do with actions. Someone can have same sex attraction and not act on it. Someone can be straight and commit same sex acts. What is your actual disagreement here?

-->
@bmdrocks21

What we know does impact reality. If we don't know anything how can we make claims about reality?

Our knowledge to the fact that someone is gay is what we require to know if someone is gay.

I claim that in order for us to know and for them to truly understand what they might be feeling they would need to act upon it. If they don't act upon it then they are not gay due to same-sex actions. They are gay in their head or theoretically which removing the positive of the theoretical really has no pragmatic purpose if never acted upon outside the mind.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I feel as though there may have been some confusion as to my stance. I don't claim to know people are gay. I claim that they know, which makes it real. This is what makes them gay, not our knowledge of theirs acts and feelings

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Ok... but whether or not we know has nothing to do with reality, Yes? My point has been: someone is gay if they are gay. Our knowledge of the fact is utterly irrelevant. Do you find fault with that claim?

-->
@bmdrocks21

People could be gay. You won't know it until they tell you or you see them do a same-sex act.

We not knowing someone is gay does mean they can or cannot be gay. We can't go into everyone's mind instead would have to wait and trust a claim made by the person.

If someone is starving and you can't prove they are or not starving then we don't know what is going on.

If someone is trapped in a well and you can't prove it then we don't know what is or isn't in the well.

We don't know until we know.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

No, they could be true. I think based on personal experience, we could say that one or both of those is highly unlikely, though. However, being gay isn't an abstract concept that has never been proven before. What is your issue about a truth existing that we aren't aware of? I'm not aware of anyone starving in my state right now. Does that mean that no one is starving? If someone is trapped in a well, but no one knows about it, is no one in that well? Of course they are.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Okay then.
I also take the position we are in a matrix. We just don't know it yet.
I also take the position climate change will end life. We just don't know it yet.

Have any problems with what I said?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

They are still a murderer. We just don't know it yet. Someone can be gay without us knowing, too. I believe the phrase is "in the closet".

-->
@bmdrocks21

Tell me is a murderer still a murderer if no one has proven they did it?

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Like let's pretend you have a schizophrenic fellow. He hears voices constantly telling him to do stuff, but he doesn't listen to them. He is still schizophrenic

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Yes you can be gay without expressing it. Being gay means you are attracted to someone of the same sex. Even if they do not act on those feelings, they still exist. I don't see why you have to act on feelings to validate their existence.

You can support the Republican party on a philosophical level. You can find it the better of the two parties but still not vote for them.

-->
@bmdrocks21

You didn't really address what I said.

If a gay man had no way of expressing their feelings would they still be gay?

Acting upon those makes people an assigned category. If you vote Republican you support the Republican party. If you act on same-sex acts you are gay.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I think that being gay is 100% nature. Whether or not they will act upon these feelings is more of where nurture kicks in.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

I mean, even if there was no men, a guy could still be gay. He wouldn't be attracted to women. He would think he didn't have any desire for a mate, but those hidden feelings would exist. Same with repressing the feelings. Even if you dont show your attraction or try to deny it, it still exists. I'm more of a 80-90% nature kind of person for most issues

-->
@bmdrocks21

Think of Nature as internal. Nurture as external.

I am not saying being gay is a choice. I am saying someone being gay is more of a Nurture thing than Nature.

I think 20/80 or 40/60. Something like that.

Sure the Nature might be more important but I can't deny the amount of external support was used to make that happen. So much so it overshadows the Nature because that was just stepping stone not the thing that slowly made the Nature prosper.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Nature V Nurture

If a gay person found no men how would he be gay?
If a gay person had no way of showing his feelings how would he be gay?

That is why I think Nurture plays a part more in pretty much anything. Nature can make it easier to attain things like beauty, muscle etc. So basically Nurture does most of the work but Nature can be the oomph to even allow that to occur or make it easier or beat people who rely only on Nurture.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

What are your thoughts? I'm having a hard time thinking of how someone could become gay through choice.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Better representation of his argument is that he believes nurture plays more of a role in a person's sexual preferences than nature.

-->
@Kikomori

I'm sorry, I may have to post my argument at the last minute because of personal stuff, I'm going to a funeral :( , and/maybe forfeit one round.

-->
@bmdrocks21

Yes

-->
@Gatorade

Ok, so you're saying that homosexuality is not at all genetic. You are saying it is 100% a choice?

My side on this debate doesn't mean that I am homosexual, it just proves that I think that you can't be decided as straight, or even gay at birth. You have to decide over time. Women are not met to be with men, and vice versa.

whoever accepts prepare to be publicly shamed because this website is to homosexual

-->
@Gatorade

In what way are you pro-alphabet?

-->
@Gatorade

Our perception of time only goes in one direction. Time is actually absolute though, so anything that "will be" determined is necessarily already determined. Furthermore, even if time didn't work that way, a computer with an unfathomably vast CPU could plot the entire universe from start to finish with 100% accuracy based only on exact measurements of the first instant of the Big Bang. There is nothing to be determined that isn't already.

-->
@Barney

Determinism also popped right into my head, but thought of the same problem. I hate that I am less creative than I think

-->
@oromagi
@MisterChris

I am pro-LGBTQ, which means I think that people can decide their gender/sexual orientation NOT during birth. Which means that I do NOT think sexual orientation always has to be determined at birth. I am Con-Sexual orientation is determined at birth and Pro-LGBTQ. If you need more clarification, I would be happy to explain more deeply.

A religious argument in favor of this resolution just popped into my head. God commands it!
...
Incidentally, determinism would cover it broadly but someone might pull semantics of 'well that would mean it's determined before birth...'

If you are con, and don't think that sexual "orientation" is determined at birth, I would be willing to debate this with you.

-->
@Gatorade

I agree with oromagi, are you pro or con?

-->
@Gatorade

Your format indicates that u will prove that sexual orientation is NOT determined @ birth. But your description answers the question affirmative. Why say at birth rather than genetically or at conception? How shall we interpret the orange peel reference?