Is being gay or bisexual a choice?

JesusisGod777888

@Happy_Killbot

You've just caused yourself to lose the argument based on your last post.

Jesus Christ win count: forever

Happy_Killbot

JesusisGod777888 said:

@Happy_Killbot

the amygdala is fully developed at birth, and is responsible for sexual arousal and sexual stimulation.

Apparently you can not rationalize that sexual maturity effects
sexual behaviors in children two to five years of age are of a greater variety and are more common.

You have caused yourself to lose the argument suggesting that children are unable to make sexual associations until they fully sexually mature.

Therefore the nature of their sexuality is not based on psychological responses.

That would mean that sexual development is the cause of psychological association and sexual arousal or attraction.

Are you even reading my arguments?

This is just more straw men and incomplete data.

First off, the amygdala is not entirely responsible for sexual arousal and stimulation, only partially so. 
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/the-brain-where-does-sex-live-in-the-brain-from-top-to-bottom

"Using fMRI, scientists have pinpointed a number of regions of the brain that kick in when people feel sexual desire. As expected, several of them are in the temporal lobe. One of those regions, the amygdala, orchestrates powerful emotions. Another, the hippocampus, manages our memories. It may become active as we associate sights and smells with past sexual experiences. But despite what Freud thought, sexual experiences are not just a matter of primal emotions and associations. The parts of the brain that light up in the fMRI scans include regions that are associated with some of our most sophisticated forms of thought. The anterior insula, for instance, is what we use to reflect on the state of our own bodies (to be aware of the sensation of butterflies in the stomach, say, or of lightness in the head). Brain regions that are associated with understanding the thoughts and intentions of other people also seem linked with sexual feelings."

On top of this, it doesn't matter anyways. Your leaps in logic undermine your own position again:

Assume the amygdala is responsible for sexual desire

1. The amygdala is fully developed at birth

2. therefore sexual desires would be fully developed at birth.

3. This implies that sexual desire is something that someone is born with and not a choice.

Happy_Killbot

@JesusisGod777888

P.S. You forgot to tag "Jesus is Lord" once again,

You are most certainly going to hell, and "forever" is not an integer.

JesusisGod777888

@Happy_Killbot

You've already failed based on the fact you asserted that children do not have or expierience sexual association. Therefore they could not be born that way.

You've failed based on what you said.

Since you asserted that sexuality and sexual organs develope at a different time than the brain.

Jesus is God.

JesusisGod777888

@Happy_Killbot

Also the largest factor associated with decisions actions or behaviours is personality.

On the basis of personality you lose the argument all toghether.

Jesus wins.

Hahaha what a proposterous argument you've asserted and one of the biggest failures possible.

YeshuaBought

Happy_Killbot said:

JesusisGod777888 said:

@Happy_Killbot

The just because you can argument is fallacy because it is not associated with nature, the natural tendency and qualities that define normal behaviour.

Reproductive organs define natural qualities and therefore determine the natural sexuality that is based on cognitive development and natural sexual association.

Jesus Christ is God.

Some people are hermaphrodite. If it is as black and white as you claim, what natural sexuality would these individuals ought to have?

I agree. This hermaphrodite person could be intersex.

Happy_Killbot

@JesusisGod777888
I'm talking about a developing fetus, prior to birth.

You really didn't read what I said did you? Or if you did you made no real attempt to understand it.

Relax buddy. There is a reason I started this discourse with a steel man argument, It's because I know that the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side, and I think an unbiased third party would agree.

JesusisGod777888

@YeshuaRedeemed

The argument that sexual organs don't dictate sexuality, and then asserting the heamophrodite because of sexual organs outlines sexuality is a fallacy.

That's what you call a hypocrite.

So it's been made obvious, homosexuality's a choice and is not based on the psychological nature of sexuality.

Happy_Killbot

@JesusisGod777888

@Happy_Killbot

Also the largest factor associated with decisions actions or behaviours is personality.

On the basis of personality you lose the argument all toghether.

Jesus wins.

Hahaha what a proposterous argument you've asserted and one of the biggest failures possible.

How do you know personality isn't determined from birth and environmental factors?

Are you now arguing you choose your personality?

If so, why didn't you choose to be a good, empathetic person who doesn't judge people based on sexual preference?

Based on all the spelling errors, I would say you don't have a strong grasp on your own arguments, or know how to use spell check.

Happy_Killbot

@JesusisGod777888
LOL!

No, I'm pointing out the flawed reasoning in your argument.

Because a hermaphrodite IS NOT intersex, then YOUR argument that sexual organs outlines sexuality is the FALLACY!

I AM NOT saying that, YOU ARE!

Happy_Killbot

@JesusisGod777888
Here is another little piece out of the DSM - 5, something I bet you are regretting you brought up about now.

I doubt you sill read this, but here it is for anyone not afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger effect. This piece is, in effect, all about you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779/

"Rigid gender beliefs usually flourish in fundamentalist, religious communities where any information or alternative explanations that might challenge implicit and explicit assumptions are unwelcome. When entering the realms of gender and sexuality, it is not unusual to encounter another form of binary thinking: “morality tales” about whether certain kinds of thoughts, feelings, or behaviors are “good or bad” or, in some cases, whether they are “good or evil” [14,15,16]. The good/bad binary is not confined to religion alone, as the language of morality is inevitably found, for example, in theories about the “causes” of homosexuality. For in the absence of certitude about homosexuality’s “etiology,” binary gender beliefs and their associated moral underpinnings frequently play a role in theories about the causes and/or meanings of homosexuality. When one recognizes the narrative forms of these theories, some of the moral judgments and beliefs embedded in each of them become clearer."

PG_Void

@Happy_Killbot

I wasn’t referring to what JesusisGod said, I was referring to the original question, “Is being gay or bisexual a choice?”
Let me ask you a question, would I be wrong as to say, you can choose to go have sex with someone who is the same gender as you or the opposite? 
I’m assuming the answer would be no, I’m not wrong. Any of us can choose who we sleep with, so now we get to the part of the definition.
Me pointing out preference was not me saying that preference and choice were the same thing, I was simply saying that, in order to prefer one thing over the other, you must first try the things you are comparing. So, unless you CHOSE to try them, then how would you know which one you preferred?

Happy_Killbot

@PG_Void
Ummm... I would answer yes to that question... I am a straight male, but if I wanted, I could have sex with a man.

I guess you haven't heard of desperate drug addicts?

I wouldn't like it though, because I am not into that, and that is the "choice" we are talking about here. Do you choose which preference you have, and the answer is no, because I can not choose to enjoy sex with a man as a straight male.

I don't need to try it to know that I wouldn't like it, I just know.

If you need to try something to know if you would/would not like it, let me ask you this: Would you enjoy having a limb cut off without anesthesia?

If you believe what you said, then how do you know that you wouldn't enjoy this? You could be a masochist and not know it.

JesusisGod777888

@Happy_Killbot

You lost the debate based on your own reasoning, second it's established sexuality is a psychological nature that results from gender and the hormones particular to a man or women.

Jesus created the world, I could care less about your argument, it's fallacy and second has no bearing on God Jesus .

smoothie

@JesusisGod777888 My feelings developed towards men. Did I choose how puberty would affect me? Probably not, because I can't choose to disable my hormones and puberty on my own.

You don't have to know your sexuality by having sex with everybody, that is absurd. People do not "choose" to have feelings by forcing themselves to feel something when something happens. Did you have the choice to feel sadness when developing emotions? You would be a psychopath if you did. Did you choose to feel pain when breaking an arm? Did you choose the dopamine release when eating a cookie?

Are you implying that everybody can turn homosexual by simplying having a same-sex encounter? Want to do a field test of that theory before making that claim?

https://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403.abstract

There are even physical differences, like the amygdala that was brought up. Some even have studied the lengths of fingers and the like. I don't think any of these were choices either

Happy_Killbot said:

Assume the amygdala is responsible for sexual desire

1. The amygdala is fully developed at birth

2. therefore sexual desires would be fully developed at birth.

3. This implies that sexual desire is something that someone is born with and not a choice.

@Happy_Killbot reiterates this perfectly. These small differences are not choice, yet they come up again and again in studies of sexuality. Even though they don't cause sexuality, they are physical differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. I think you are mad at logic itself, @JesusisGod777888

JesusisGod777888 said:

Jesus created the world, I could care less about your argument, it's fallacy and second has no bearing on God Jesus .

You already lost here.

JesusisGod777888

@smoothie

Apparently you read nothing I wrote.

Sexual association and sexuality are two completely different things.

Sexuality is related to reproductive hormones. This is not-debatable and based on a clear indication of how hormones effect sexual development and sexuality.

An X or Y chromosome dictate gender.

Biologically you develope sexually as a male or female with reproductive organs and reproductive hormones.

Hormones dictate sexual impulse.

Sexual association can be natural or unnatural.

Psychologically, sexual association can effect sexual impulse.

You can unnaturally cause sexual attraction because of sexual associations.

Homosexuality is a sexual association. If you have feelings for the same sex, it falls in the face of people who lived homosexual lifestyles and stopped commiting sexually immoral behaviours.

Bisexuality dictates that sexuality is a choice. You can not equally be attracted to sex-differences in people and assert people are limited in circumstances to be homosexuals.

Jesus is God. The problem is you can be attracted to the opposite sex and it's been proven by people who were once homosexual.

This isn't even an argument, this is arguing that the nature common between male and females doesn't apply to sexuality. Nonsense.

You can be sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

Jesus is Lord 

smoothie

@JesusisGod777888

Apperantly you read nothing @Happy_Killbot wrote because he blew your argument out of the water.

The topic is if sexuality is a choice, by the way. My sexuality developed, naturally, without even having sex. I developed these feelings naturally without choice.

Homosexuality is a sexuality like heterosexuality, It's literally in the name given to it by science. Yet you argue against it and say it is an "association"? I would love an outside source for that one because I believe you are making things up at this point.

You still argue that if anybody has a same-sex encounter they will develop this "sexual associaton" and turn gay? Did you know that there are people that have had a same-sex or opposite-sex encounter and still have the same sexuality? There are celibate people of every sexuality in the book aswell. The sexual act itself is not sexuality, seems you are as confused as Rickey.

You argue the existance of bisexuality means it is a choice? Where did bisexual feelings come from? Do you think every straight, gay, and bisexual person got their feelings from having sex? Why would they engage in sex in the first place?

The argument of "ex-gays" is curious. Their circumstances differ for every case and is not definitive proof that it is a choice. Were they gay people succumbing to social pressure to abandon their sexuality? Were they straight people confused about their sexuality in the past? Were they bisexual people that only opened themselves up to one gender? Who knows? Not me, not you.

Your same "association" argument caused the disturbing practice of "shocking the gay" out of people. Yet look at that success rate, terrible.

Happy_Killbot

@JesusisGod777888 I am going to be frank with you, If you are worried about wining or losing, then you are doing debate wrong. This is directly correlated to why you don't make an effective debater.

The reason I totally eviscerated your arguments is because you never bothered to actively read, understand, and provide an adequate response to my arguments. Debate is about finding truth by pitting ideas against each other. It is about forming the most concise, clear, sound, and convincing argument you can.

Your debate is filled with fallacies: ad hominem attacks, straw men, non sequitur arguments, almost every one of your comments ends with irrelevant information, which P.S. you forgot to end with "Jesus is Lord" so you are going to hell for all eternity unless you repent.

If you want to be an effective debater, you need to actually think about what you are saying and why, I have no doubt that I could take your position on this debate and still do a good job.

For example you state "Hormones dictate sexual impulse." This is a partially true factoid.

But then you make no effort to proving that hormones are always associated with the gender they are assigned to. I then come back and punish your mistake, by providing evidence that sex hormones are not cut and dry, not binary, not just black and white, not simple but complex, not ugly but beautiful, not ordered but chaotic.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2019.00592/full

This is how this entire discussion has played out time after time.

If you want to get better, I would recommend the following books:

"Why debate" by Shawn Briscoe

"Crimes against Logic" by Jamie Whyte

"Being Logical a guide to good thinking" by D.Q. Mcinerny

MayCaesar

I have never understood the argument that if being homosexual/bisexual is a choice, then being one is wrong. This makes zero sense. There are many choices in life people can make; is making all of them wrong?

Why do you not try to argue instead that there is something wrong in homosexuality/bisexuality inherently, regardless of whether one has a choice to not be one or not? I have yet to see the argument from anyone of the kind, "Homosexuality/bisexuality is wrong, because X, Y and Z", where X, Y and Z is not "The Bible says so" (which it actually does not, and even if it did, it would mean nothing) or "Statistically, you are more likely to do A and B as a homosexual/bisexual" (which really is a lousy argument to use individually).

Suppose I were homosexual. What benefits would there be in me "choosing" to become straight instead? I personally only see two possible benefits: the ability to have biological children with one's partner, and not having to face possible discrimination. But the former is irrelevant, as logically there is no advantage to having biological children over, say, adopted children. And the latter, first of all, is the failure of the society, not the individual, second, is fairly minor in the modern Western society, and third, not everyone is a scared rabbit making choices purely to avoid discrimination.

Equivalently, being fairly straight, I see no reason to consider "becoming" homosexual/bisexual. I guess, being bisexual, your pool of the potential partners is bigger, so that would be some minor advantage - but there is already nearly 4 billion women on Earth, so it is not like there are any shortages of potential partners.

I would like to see an actual argument that explains why being homosexual/bisexual is inherently wrong, based purely on logical/natural arguments, and not on ancient scribblings or conformity.

Happy_Killbot

MayCaesar said:

I have never understood the argument that if being homosexual/bisexual is a choice, then being one is wrong. This makes zero sense. There are many choices in life people can make; is making all of them wrong?

I would like to see an actual argument that explains why being homosexual/bisexual is inherently wrong, based purely on logical/natural arguments, and not on ancient scribblings or conformity.

There is an argument here, but it is antiquated and has no little bearing in our modern world. The argument is that homosexuals don't have kids, and therefore leave no heir. In the patriarchal ancient world where a woman's value was based solely on here ability to produce kids and a man's value based solely on his ability to defend his tribe and collect resources, a homosexual son represents the end of your lineage, because without coercion they have no children of their own.

It makes perfect sense that religions would "evolve" to see it as something evil and inherently immoral because when the neighboring tribe is eyeing your flock with envy, you can not spare a single single seed. There needs to be long term continuation of your culture and values that will be guaranteed after death. It is harmful, not to the people but to the ideas themselves to have members who do not produce offspring, so forcing them into submission is the only viable answer.

The reason that many religious institutions need to view it as a choice is because they need to demonize it as something performed out of free will, in order to justify it as a sin. If it is something that is inherent to individuals, then this implies that we have no control over it, so how can they say that someone can choose not to be sinful?

This is of little relevance in today's world because we don't need to increase our population just to survive, and we have little need to leave heirs. Our children almost always survive to adulthood, and when it doesn't happen it's a travesty. We no longer treat women with impunity, but with fairness, equality, and respect. A homosexual son isn't a big deal the way it used to be, but many still cling to their fundamental conservative values because they don't see the change all around them. Our society has changed, and with it our values. Morality is subjective. In the ancient world, homosexuality may have been detrimental to society, but it isn't today.