Being gay is not a choice

In response to your first argument. Your first argument stated "where they risk death" and " however people are still killed by homophobes for being homosexual, they could have lied, but they didn"t". This is what I was rebutting. In these cases where their lives are at stake they care trying to be an example[4]. Trying to prove to others that they are proud to be what they are and that they cannot take that away from them. If these people are insane then so is Malcolm X, MLK, Malala and all these other people who stand up for their rights and what they believe in. Obviously this is not the case for most people in our safe western society, but I was rebutting your point in which immediate death was in place. For your response to my third argument, that was itself not a response. For most of my debate I have used psychological examples and scientifically proven responses. What you just said cannot be more wrong. Even if you're against today's "Liberal Scientists" then you can still take into account all of the backwards scientists trying their hardest to try to make homosexuality look like a mental illness, not even they have found a sliver of a clue that homosexuality makes you more risk taking or masochistic. When we don't even have a grade 9 hypothesis on the matter, I feel it is safe to assume it doesn't exist. "First, their evidence only says if someone were to choose to be gay, then they would choose to want a hold someone of the same sex or kiss someone but someone doesn"t," I made the mistake of believing you were on my knowledge level of the human brain. I apologize. The things stated in the source were examples of subconscious behaviour. Things you do not choose, but it chooses for you[1]. A heterosexual person would not exhibit these feelings for the same sex and vice versa. For your Puerto Rico example though that is not even closely to how predetermined sexual orientation works let's just use this example. Your brain hardwires everything for you by the age of seven[2]. Though this particular region of Puerto Rico was possibly decided before you were born[3]. If you're brain was hardwired to hate it there you cannot go there and like it without lying to yourself, if you're brain was hardwired to like it there then if you go there and originally think you're going to hate it and like it that's because your brain says so. See the thing about it is that people can choose to have homosexual sex, but one cannot choose to be homosexual. If one is a heterosexual person they cannot simply make the switch to homosexual without being homosexual. "NO solid evidence of a gay gene yet." I never said there was a gay gene I said there was significant evidence there was one. In science until we can define something as fact sometimes significant evidence and all of the unconnecting puzzle pieces is the best you can get. "not just that they are related because the word related is so vague it could mean anything. " Vague evidence is far better than none at all. Whereas with the scientists trying to find a relation with Chromosome Xq28 there is no evidence on your side that it is a choice. See vagueness and "might, maybe, possibly"s are a lot better than nothing-at-alls. This can also be used against my opponent because of his earlier argument "one can not say that something doesn"t exist purely because it has been proven yet." This has not yet been proven, but it still has significant evidence for it. Can you say it does not exist simply because it has not been proven yet? To you response on Xq28, I see your concerns the fact is we're not done yet. We still have a lot more research to do in the female department and we still have to solidify and get rid of any loose ends. Though we still have more evidence than con's party does, nothing is set in stone. If you're against the possiblies and maybes we can have this debate again in 10 years and I'll have more solid answers. In conclusion, my opponent is wrong by default because anyone who "chooses" to be gay was already gay by default. There is not non-outdated evidence to support con's side except the testimonies of a Sex In the City actress which can be concluded to be bisexual and the Vatican[5]. I thank con for a challenging and interesting debate and hope voters to vote for pro because of scientific evidence and legitimate sources. Citation [1]http://www.geniusawakening.com... [2]http://news.softpedia.com... [3]http://scitechdaily.com... [4] [5]http://www.vatican.va...