Being gay is not a choice.

Thanks for the challenge. Clarifications: I'll reject my opponent's definition of homosexuality in favor of the medical definition, which is: sexuality directed toward someone of the same sex [1].The medical definition of sexuality is: pertaining to, characterized by, involving, or endowed with sex or the sex organs and their functions [2]. With those proper clarifications, we can see how one can posses sexuality without ever being sexually active. In other words, sexuality (and homosexuality) is largely in part determined by nature in addition to nurture. Because our sex organs, sex functions and sexual behaviors and attractions can all be attributed to neurological going-ons of the brain, then clearly one can be born predisposed to homosexuality. Science: A plethora of scientists believe that there are genetic contributions to one's sexuality, and even the Evangelical scientists who believe that it might not necessarily be a gay gene that's responsible acknowledge that there are still biological factors which contribute to one's sexual identity. Here are just some of many examples supporting my case [3], [4], [5]. Of couse further debate and clarification can be discussed upon request. However, I'm assuming that my opponent is reasonable enough to understand that sex and sexuality are obviously linked to the brain. Arguments: So onto the debate. Con's argument is that one can choose to be gay (option 1) or choose from a handful of other options to avoid their sexuality. I will present the following options and dismantle every single so-called choice that my opponent presents: 2. Suicide A) As I have pointed out, there is substantial evidence that genetics and other biological determinants heavily influence sexual orientation. In that case, suicide is not a viable option for an infant either inside or outside of the womb. These individuals cannot make the conscious decision to commit suicide, nor would they actually be able to do so. In that case, suicide is NOT a feasible choice for one that young, and therefore one would have to live as a homosexual, thereby affirming the resolution. B) If one chooses to end their life i.e. cease to "be," then one is not choosing not to be gay but rather choosing death. Even if one chooses death over being gay, the reality is that they were once gay, and being gay at that point in time still amounts to being gay without it being a choice. So, while of course one can always make the decision to end their lives, the fact remains that before they choose to do so, they were gay - not by choice. Again, the resolution is affirmed. 3. Living in Seclusion This is the most asinine argument I've ever heard. Even if one lived in seclusion, they would still identify as a homosexual. One can be a virgin or not sexually active and still maintain a sexual identity. This point does absolutely nothing to negate the resolution. 4. Sedation While it's true that one cannot be in a relationship while sedated (or have any sexual feelings or relations), the fact remains that one is still a homosexual genetically, biologically, or - as with the suicide example - they were gay prior to the sedation. Moreover, one can still engage in sexual intercourse while sedated [6]. That brings me to my contentions... Pro's Contentions: 1. Rape Con's presented definition of homosexuality was having the romantic or sexual attraction OR BEHAVIOR among members of the same sex. Whether we use that definition or my own, the fact remains that one can engage in gay sex without their consent. In instances of rape, one is involved in homosexual activity and they DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE. Therefore, I have once again negated the resolution. If you believe that it is not sex itself but rather the willingness or rather predisposition to enjoying gay sex which distinguishes one from being gay verses just experiencing gay acts, then you must accept the reality that biological factors play a role in one's sexual identity. Who you're attracted to is dependent upon chemicals and other biological occurrences. So, you'll see that even if one chooses sedation or suicide, the fact remains that while alive - the individual did not choose to be gay. And furthermore, after death, there is no one to choose an alternative to being gay so the non-living entity is irrelevant. 2. Being To clarify further on my opponent's proposal, one might be able to choose not to BE gay as in be gay in the future (i.e. by committing suicide). However, one cannot avoid BEING gay as in being gay that very moment (as in prior to suicide or sedation). This is a point I feel that I've made abundantly clear throughout the debate, but figured I'd reiterate for clarification. 3. Biology Christians and other groups teach that you can overcome being gay via prayer or other rituals. I'm hoping my opponent doesn't choose to go that futile route (too easy to prove wrong). But just in case, here is further proof that sex pertains to the brain [7]. Conclusion: One's sexuality is determined largely in part to biological factors. As such, if one is either genetically or somehow otherwise predisposed to being gay, then they are in fact born that way as in have developed into being that way during pregnancy. As such, said individual does not have the mental or physical capacity to willingly choose death or sedation. Therefore, they are being gay without the choice of being gay. Further, while one might choose death over being gay in the future (i.e. choose not to be gay), one cannot help or avoid being gay in the moment. So, at some point or another, one is gay without or prior to the choice. All of my opponent's contentions have been negated. Of course I reserve the right to extend any contentions for the Pro in the next round. For now, back to Con. [1] http://www.medterms.com... [2] http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://www.newscientist.com... [4] http://news.google.com... [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [6] http://www.nytimes.com... [7] http://www.sciencedaily.com...