CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with genetics, a person's sexual identity is completely related to who they are attracted to no matter what gender
To say there is a need for cure is discrimination.
I sodding hope it's not a choice, mate. Who in bleeding 'ell would fancy being a poofter? Me wife's brother is one, and I must confess that he's really not a bad bloke, even though he's a bleeding Manchester United wanker. But still I could never fathom being a bleeding fudge packer. So I think it's in their genes and they've really no choice. It's not natural for a bloke to fancy another bloke, now, is it? Since it goes against nature it can't be natural. And if it's not natural than its queer. Which is 'ow that word came zbout, in't?
Fancy this, mates...Me wife's brother, the poofter? His name is Rex. Which always hands me a right good laugh since most think of that as a rather macho name, eh? He looks and acts more like a sodding Brucie.
Have we any poofter here abouts? I've noticed a lot more since I've been in the states, I must say. Maybe it's cuz you Yanks are less any about coming out of the bleeding closet. In my home town, admitting your a poofter and you fancy a jolly good covering from another bloke is likely to get your noggin bashed in by a football hooligan.
Sexual attraction is a function of biology. It becomes stronger as one reaches puberty as a result of biological maturation. Deviations of the norm exist else where in the animal kingdom. Species we don't consider sentient.
This debate made me laugh, it's a flip on the Homosexuality is not a choice debate that people have. Sexual orientation isn't a choice. Who you are attracted to and who you sleep with isn't the same. Convoluted as that sentence may be.
Ex. I may choose to have one time sex with person B but I'm really attracted to person A and want a different sort of relationship that is more lasting than the one night stand that is person B.
No, it is NOT! (for ME anyway). I loved women, I had no choice. I think if you find you love the same gender, that is not a "choice" either. It is ALWAYS better to get on with love ... we have enough HATE in the world! Those who make this argument selfishly or religiously are stimulating the hatred. Live your own life, let others live theirs. Wouldn't you ALL feel better with no hate in your heart??
No, probably not, as the man said: "Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man"!
I'm kinda in the middle on this one because on the one hand, someone may have a natural inclination towards homo- or hetero- sexuality, but no one is forced to act on their desires. I have a natural bent towards heterosexuality, but I am still within my power to act in a homosexual way
I think you misunderstand the concept of sexuality.
Sexuality is not about who you sleep with. As a man, having sex with a woman does not automatically make you heterosexual, just like having sex with a man does not make you automatically homosexual.
Sexuality is about who you're attracted to. For instance, if I had sex with a woman despite me having absolutely no romantic or sexual attraction to women in general, I would not be heterosexual because all I am doing is having sex with women - I am not attracted to them.
Similarly, I could be attracted romantically and sexually to men, but I also may have never kissed/had sex with/been in a relationship with a man before. However, I would still be gay, even if I do not indulge in my sexuality. This is why it is ludicrous for extremist Christians to say "you can be cured!!"
No, you cannot be "cured". Whether or not you ever have sex with men, you are still gay because you are still attracted to men.
TLDR: Sexuality is about who you're naturally attracted to, not about what you act on.
"act in a homosexual way" Isn't being homosexual, however.
Sexuality refers to sexual feelings, not acts. This means that whether or not you are homosexual or heterosexual has nothing to do with one acting on said desires or not.
Sexuality itself is based off of feeling. Like, the very definition of the word is "capacity for sexual feelings". The definition of sexual orientation, on the other hand, is one's sexual identity in relation to who they are attracted to.
Since attraction is itself a feeling, I think it follows pretty directly that sexuality is predicated upon feelings, and not conscious thought.
This could just be me, but the definition you gave doesn't sound like it means what you think it means. Another word for capacity in this context would be capability. If we were to substitute the word in, it would sound different. What people are capable of isn't based off feelings. I think this is where the confusion is because it sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're confusing "capacity for" with "based on". Hope that makes sense
This could just be me, but the definition you gave doesn't sound like it means what you think it means.
I grabbed them from Meriam Webster. It might just be you :P
Another word for capacity in this context would be capability. If we were to substitute the word in, it would sound different. What people are capable of isn't based off feelings.
But sexuality and sexual orientation aren't about "capacity", other than the capacity to feel, which brings us back to square one.
What people are capable of isn't based off feelings. I think this is where the confusion is because it sounds like, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're confusing "capacity for" with "based on". Hope that makes sense
Not really. In this case, heterosexuality would be "being capable of sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex", in your context. But that just sounds unnecessarily obtuse in my opinion.
One way or another, sexuality and sexual orientation remain a matter of emotional/psychological response, not conscious choice and actions.
But sexuality and sexual orientation aren't about "capacity", other than the capacity to feel, which brings us back to square one.
The capacity to have a certain feeling doesn't make it a feeling. Everyone has the capacity to feel like they want to murder someone, but that doesn't make everyone a murderer
Not really. In this case, heterosexuality would be "being capable of sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex", in your context. But that just sounds unnecessarily obtuse in my opinion.
How so?
One way or another, sexuality and sexual orientation remain a matter of emotional/psychological response, not conscious choice and actions.
You talking about a natural bent towards a certain direction? Wouldn't giving in to those desires prove that you willing chose to follow that lifestyle?
Yes, because murder is a legally charged term and your actions would fulfill that criteria. There isn't really a logical comparison to our conversation, however.
Whether or not it's unlawful to murder someone is beside the point. If I were to kill someone in cold blood, I would be considered a murderer. You had made the claim that even if someone never acts on homosexual desires, they would still be a homosexual. If I have to murder someone to be considered a murderer, why wouldn't I have to act in a homosexual manner to be considered a homosexual? Why do I have to only think homosexual thoughts?
You seem to be missing the very meaning of the word homosexual. It does not mean one who engages in sexual acts with a person of the same sex, it means someone who is attracted to members of the same sex. That is a reaction, not an action, so to compare it to a word where the definition is predicated upon action makes no sense.
It sounds like you're assuming that because someone has attractions towards towards people of the same sex, they can't not act on them. The definition of homosexual implies that the people who identify as such choose to go along with the feeling
Even if it only implies sexual orientation, it follows from that that someone is choosing to give in to those feelings. Having homosexual thoughts doesn't make someone a homosexual just like having murderous thoughts doesn't make someone a murderer
Okay, the problem is that you are rejecting the definition of the word homosexual and substituting your own. The very word homosexual means one who has sexual attraction (see: feelings) for someone of the same sex.
That's it. The definition of murderer, on the other hand, is someone who actually comitted murder. There isn't a comparison between the two because one deals with feelings and the other with actions.
If you are going to reject the actual definition of the word in question, then you prevent a legitimate conversation from being had about this topic.
Can't argue against someone's personalized, made up definitions after all.
Even by the definition you gave for homosexuality, it implies that the person is choosing to be sexually attracted to people of the same sex. Thats not a rejection of the definition. Thats following the logic where it leads. Its why I brought up murder. Even you agreed that having feelings of murder doesn't make someone a murderer. Actually murdering someone does. Simply having feelings of homosexuality doesn't make someone a homosexual. Acting on homosexual attractions does.
I never said it implies that they choose the way they feel. What I said is that they choose to be sexually attracted to people of the same sex. Just about everybody has desire to be with someone sexually. They also recognize this desire. It is then the persons decision to act on this desire or not. The word homosexual refers to those people who acted on their attraction for people of the same sex
....sexual attraction is a feeling. It is THE feeling we are talking about. You have consistently claimed that the feeling (sexual orientation) is a choice, as you did in this very post. You also continuously insist on conflating feelings of sexual attraction (what this debate is about) with sexual acts (which this debate isn't about).
Please, seriously, enough talking about sexual acts. This debate isn't about that. It's about whether or not an individual chooses who they are attracted to. That's it.
And I have asked you several times to provide a real definition of the word homosexual that implies sexual acts. Can you, or can you not, provide one?
You're the only one bringing up sexual acts. I've only talked about people acting in a homosexual manner. I'm only going off the definition you gave to me earlier about homosexuality which is the sexual attraction to people of the same sex. With that being the case, you would have to be the one to provide the definition. In my very first comment, I agree with you. People may have a natural inclination towards homosexuality. However, I also clarified that no one is forced to act on it. I even brought up in my last reply that the definition for homosexuality refers to the people who acted on their attraction for people of the same sex. While this does include sexual acts, it is not referring to them specifically
Alright you could be more helpful in flushing things out. But this really is question on determinism. I figured the context was provided in the title. Sure it could be more concisely pinned down. I don't seems pretty clear. Maybe you're just trolling.
You then should have read that again. I've written it specifically for such an argument and the clarification.
Yet you've done both.
Give some context so that an answer can be given, else we can just have people fighting over their version of choice and some religious zombies.
Anyway, is the choice you talk about equal to the choice of where I put my keys? Is that the kind of choice sexuality should have been to be considered one here?
When use the word choice I am thinking of a conscious decisions. I apologize I am having trouble expaining further. A pure determinist would say you don't really choose where you put your keys. That is a deeper debate. This type of debate structure hardly seems conducive to flush that out. It could take awhile. I guess one way of thinking of it is you don't necessary choose how tall you are. But that is an obvious genetic trait. I suspect sexuality is similar but not quite the same as it involves different aspects of our chemistry. If you have any ideas as to how and define it let me know. I will consider should I debate the topic again.
Well technically everyone has a choice. Be it the bend that way or go straight, it was their choice and their choice only. No one is forcing them. It's like having a choice of getting a burger or buying a pizza. My point is, you have a choice.
You bend over for people of the same gender by choice. You are not a robot. You are a sinner who needs to agree with God that your sinning is wrong and you have no right to do it.
All sex is a choice. No one forces us to have sex with another.
The difference is that only heterosexuality is how we are design and how biology meant us to be.
There are all types of unnatural attractions in the world.
Some people are attracted to children, some to animals, some to dead people, some to the same sex. Some people think they are the wrong gender.
There are all types of abnormal unnatural things in this world, but we all know what is normal and how we are designed to be.
Your attractions to whoever and for what ever reason (whether it be a disorder or not) does not make it normal. You have the freedom to choose whatever you want in this life but you should never be forcing others to agree or sanction it as normal.
Big Government and LGBT activists have no right to force all our public schools to allow boys in the girls bathrooms, and no activists should be able to force every state to change their marrigage laws.
No activists should be able to sue Churches to force them to allow Gay Sunday school teachers as they have already tried to do.
If people want to be respected, they better respect our freedoms to disagree and the freedom to run our public schools as the community chooses.
I told you it matters not why people are attracted to different things or if they chose to be gay or straight. What matters is the normal natural order of our world.
There will always be those who have disorders, or attractions to things outside the norm. They are free to be who they say they are, but this does not make it normal and society should not be treating it as just another normal sexual orientation.
Our children deserve to grow up in a society built around the normal natural order to life without activists telling our schools how they must conduct their bathroom policies, or whether they should have Gay awareness days.
Kids can deal with those controversial subjects when they are old enough and mature enough to handle it. If parents want to teach their kids controverial sexual topics when they are young, they can do it their OWN HOMES!
The arrogant activists can keep out of my daughter's bathrooms!
I told you it matters not why people are attracted to different things or if they chose to be gay or straight. What matters is the normal natural order of our world.
But this debate isn't about what is normal or natural, it is about whether or not sexuality is a choice.
Big Government and LGBT activists have no right to force all our public schools to allow boys in the girls bathrooms, and no activists should be able to force every state to change their marrigage laws.
Ok, boys being allowed in the girls bathroom affects girls, but marriage doesn't affect other people, so you have no reason why the government can't force the marriage laws to conform to the constitution.
No activists should be able to sue Churches to force them to allow Gay Sunday school teachers as they have already tried to do.
Unfortunately, that's not how life works. People will do things they aren't allowed to do. The courts have agreed with you on this one. Someone sues the church and the courts shut it down. You can't eliminate the part where people do things they aren't supposed to do. But, since the courts have ruled for the church, your complaint is worthless.
If people want to be respected, they better respect our freedoms to disagree and the freedom to run our public schools as the community chooses.
There is nothing about the community choosing how to run the school that makes any sense. There is no community choice in schools.
"I'm basicly sexual attraction isn't something that one chooses." It is a very confused foreigner among us and welcome aboard but "It is" you make absolutely no sense !
No the foreigner can't even put a sentence together that makes any sense. Hostile ? Pointing out stupidity which the foreigner showed in it's own words !
