Being a homosexual (practicing, or no) is not a choice.

Because my opponent does not appear to be versed in specific argumentation techniques (e. g. , Policy Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, etc. ), I will present my arguments in common-case form. For the record, please understand that the arguments and evidence that I advance here in this debate do not necessarily reflect my own personal opinions. I will first address her arguments before introducing my own into the round. I will agree to withhold religious arguments from the debate, as my opponent requests in her first paragraph, so long as she stipulates the existence of religious arguments against her position. My opponent's second paragraph goes entirely to support my position. Look at the following logical reasoning: 1. As my opponent concedes, homosexuality is not nature (that is, does not regularly occur in nature). 2. Humans possess greater cognitive skills than any other animal in the animal kingdom, allowing them the power of, inter alia, choice. 3. This power of choice allows humans to do things not natural to them. 4. Therefore, humans are able to choose whether or not to be homosexual. Thus, the argument of my opponent actually supports the "Con" side of this debate. My opponent next argues that, because hermaphrodites occur naturally, homosexuality should likewise be considered natural. There is a substantial difference, however, between hermaphroditism and homosexuality. A hermaphrodite is an individual who possesses both male and female genitalia, while a homosexual is a seemingly-normal individual who is attracted to members of the same sex. My opponent has demonstrated no relationship between these two factors, and this argument is, therefore, nontopical to today's debate. My opponent's fourth argument is that gay people who convert back to heterosexuality probably were never gay. She also suggests that the origin of homosexuality is obscure, however she does imply that many homosexuals come from abusive households. Frankly, I don't understand the relevance of this contention. If my opponent can explain to me the topicality of this argument, then I will address it in my next constructive; otherwise, it should be excluded from the round. Next, my opponent submits that she is not a homosexual, nor does she consider herself ever to possibly become a homosexual. "Why," she asks, "do only some of us get a choice. .. ?" This, however, is a personal account. My opponent is uncomfortable practicing homosexuality just as other persons are uncomfortable expressing their personal opinions in public. Americans find it commonplace to eat beef, while Indians find it abhorrent. It is not plausible for my opponent to contend that just because she, or any person like her, finds herself unable to choose to be a homosexual, no person may choose to be a homosexual. This argument does not stand to reason. My opponent's contention regarding an individual's duty to "fight the perversion" is not topical to this debate. She has challenged me to discuss whether or not homosexuality is a choice, not whether homosexuality is wrong. I refuse to debate this argument unless shown a reason to do so. I say the same to my opponent's last argument discussing "this country's obsession with homosexuals". Finally, I have some trouble with the word "homosexuality". My opponent never discussed it in her case. Are we talking about gay sex? A gay lifestyle? Simply being attracted to individuals of the same sex? I will try to deliver my arguments in accordance with what I perceive to be homosexuality, but I would ask my opponent to clarify what exactly it is that we are debating here. Having discussed my opponent's case that homosexuality is not a choice, I will now submit my own arguments that homosexuality is a choice. My principal argument follows this logical reasoning: 1. Homosexuals have a choice in living their lifestyle - that is, whether or not they, inter alia, 'flaunt' their homosexuality. 2. Lifestyles of all individuals, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, are constructed by choice. 3. Therefore, homosexuality is a choice. First, homosexuals do have a choice in how to live their lifestyle. By this, I mean that individuals are able to choose how sexual their lifestyle is. Allow me to use an example. Let us discuss an individual who, for these purposes, I will refer to as "John". John is gay, but he is adamant about expounding his homosexuality. He has made sure that everyone knows he is gay, and frequently skews what individuals around him say into sexual comments. In short, he is an outspoken homosexual. This describes the vast majority of homosexuals that I know, that many of my friends and coworkers know, and that many of you, the audience members and adjudicators, probably know. Am I saying that every homosexual acts this way? Of course not. Neither myself nor my opponent can debate truisms such as this, since if either of us find one exception to the other's argument, that argument would fall. Neither do I suggest that there is something inherently wrong with this, but I am rather insinuating that many homosexuals practice their sexual preference in this way. This brings me to my second argument, that lifestyles such as this are a choice. An individual has a choice every morning when they decide what clothes to wear, where to go, and how to act in public, including what to say and do in general. An individual has a choice whether or not be polite and kind or rude and mean, and has an equal choice in whether or not to flaunt their sexuality. These choices tend to be decided based on who a person is - that is, a polite and kind person will not normally commit acts or rudeness or meanness, such as, e. g. , thievery. By extension, therefore, homosexuals have a choice here. It is not a mandatory facet of their convictions that they ensure everyone around them knows their preferences. Rather, this is done by choice. I hope that I have clearly conveyed my arguments (it is rather early in the morning as I am finishing this up). Again, I would like to reiterate that the arguments I have expressed here do not necessarily reflect my own personal opinions. Within the confines of this discussion, however, my opponent has failed to prove that homosexuality is not a choice, and I therefore urge a negative in this debate.