Instigator / Pro
16
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
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
Better arguments
0
15
Better sources
8
10
Better legibility
4
5
Better conduct
4
2

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!

-->
@Theweakeredge

"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.

-->
@Ehyeh

There is a level of biological as well as sociological determinism yes, i don't see how thats a flaw in my argument.

-->
@Theweakeredge

"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.

-->
@Ehyeh

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.

-->
@Ehyeh

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.

-->
@Intelligence_06

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.

-->
@Ehyeh

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.

-->
@Ehyeh

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.

-->
@Intelligence_06
@Theweakeredge

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.

-->
@gustahtocantins

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

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

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

-->
@bmdrocks21

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

-->
@Theweakeredge

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)

-->
@bmdrocks21

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.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Unless you think that oppression of Christians in countries such as Iran is invalid because they "chose" their religion.

-->
@Theweakeredge

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

-->
@Bringerofrain

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

-->
@Theweakeredge

We weren't discussing if people can choose to be gay. We are discussing the ramifications of that being true or somebody believing that.

-->
@bmdrocks21

I've already explained it - it invalidates all of the oppression that gay people face

-->
@Bringerofrain

I don't feel the need to elaborate - figure it out

-->
@Bringerofrain

Feelings are not made up, people who assume that they can choose to feel something are incorrect - stop it with your false dichotomies

-->
@Theweakeredge

What is not what that means.. please elaborate. I'm confused

-->
@Bringerofrain

Furthermore, no - that is not what that means - you are being obviously obtuse.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Which thing do you "feel" is made up?

-->
@Bringerofrain

If you make up something I say ever again, you will be blocked.

-->
@Theweakeredge

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.

-->
@Theweakeredge

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"

-->
@Theweakeredge

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.

-->
@Theweakeredge

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?

-->
@Bringerofrain

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.

-->
@Theweakeredge

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.

-->
@Bringerofrain

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.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

If you read my argument then you would know the answer to that

-->
@Theweakeredge

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.

-->
@Theweakeredge

What biological component determines a person sexuality? And not just vaguely appealing to evolution, surveys, or something. What specific component or components determine attraction?

-->
@Bringerofrain

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.

-->
@Theweakeredge

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.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

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

-->
@Theweakeredge

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.

-->
@Bringerofrain

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

-->
@Theweakeredge

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

-->
@Bringerofrain

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 -

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

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.