Homosexuality is not a choice.

First off, I would like to say I am overjoyed to have an actual debate to participate in as it has been such a long off season for me. Second of all, in this speech I will be extending two my previous arguments and rebutting his responses. As an opening statement and as the basic idea for this speech, this must be understood: The Con has the burden to prove that a "state of mind" is a choice rather than apart of particular people. Due to the conditional meanings of the word the Pro provides and defines it as, this is seemingly impossible (I will go into detail in the arguments below). With this being said, the voters are left to lean to the side of logic, rather than assumption as the Pro states clearly in his previous speech: "we do not know if sexuality is nature or nurture." Nature is the side my opponent has taken obviously because nature would be the reason for such a state of mind to have existed in certain people from birth. If the Pro is unsure about his basis argument for this debate, the Con wins by default. A. Examples of chosen homosexuality: -"I have never heard a homosexual person tell me that they chose to change their sexuality as the result of abuse. Fearing members of the opposite sex does not cause homosexuality, and I have never heard of such a case. If it does indeed exist, it does not account for the majority of the homosexual population. " -First mistake the Pro makes is by saying they have never heard a homosexual person tell them that they chose to change their sexuality as the result of abuse. If my arguments validity is simply on what my opponent has "heard" and "not heard" there can be no fair debate. -Second, Although the opponent opens his mind to the possibility of my example provided, he says that it cannot account for the entire population of homosexuals. This I can agree with; one portion does not make the population. However, it does require the Pro to refine his definition of the term "homosexuality" to rule out all strait people who have *chosen* to become homosexuals after a certain event. When he does this of course, he can no longer call the debate "homosexuality is not a choice" because of instances where it is. If this state of mind is found in such a profound, well-known population of individuals which he intends to encompass with his argument then he cannot proclaim the reason everyone of these individuals is homosexual be it by "nature or nurture". -Third and in conclusion of this argument, I do agree that some individuals are more prone to homosexual tendencies their whole life for biological reasons. There is no denying that people are born with more hormones than others, which can be attributed to why they grow up and live the life of a homosexual. However, because of the portion of people who have chosen to live this lifestyle, one cannot state "homosexuality" is never a choice. -It is the burden of the Con to prove that Homosexuality is a choice and nothing more or less. With the arguments which have been provided so far I feel that the Con has fulfilled that task. B. Homosexuality V.s Pan sexuality In this argument I would like to make clear that the definitions of these words are understood before I proceed with my second argument: -Homosexuality:a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex. -(The Pro's interpretation of Homosexuality for this debate) :being someone who has the feelings towards members of the same sex in the first place. -Sexuality: Capacity for sexual feelings. A person's sexual orientation or preference. -Sexual feelings: Relating to the instincts, physiology, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate contact between individuals which instigates an emotional state or reaction. -Pan sexuality:Not limited or inhibited in sexual choice with regard to gender or activity.A person who is sexually inclusive in this way. -Ability:The capacity to do or have something The Pro asks to limit the debate to the topic of one person preferring to find intimate feelings for another person of the same sexual orientation. I admit, the term "Pan sexual" and "homo sexual" are different but by the Pro's definition of homosexual, only slightly so. - "I believe sexuality is not a choice. My argument still stands. Sexuality is the ability to have feelings for people. It is not a choice." -Pro Unless the Pro has other altered definitions of words concerning this topic this is what the Pro has said: " I believe that a capacity for sexual feelings or person's sexual orientation or preference is not a choice. (A "preference" is a choice for something better than something else.) My argument still stands. The capacity for sexual feelings or a person's sexual orientation or preference is the capacity to have something ("something" being feelings which they have chosen to embrace be it by "nature or nurture" ). It is not a choice." In the definitions provided above, sexuality talks about "sexual feelings" which talk about developing feelings which are only possible by interaction such as thoughts or activities where two people would be together. By this logic, a person can become homosexual by having intimate feelings or attractions to another person of the same sex, and choose to embrace them.With respect to the Pro's interpretation of Homosexuality, I am not saying that they embrace them for sexual purposes but rather for love or as my opponents girl-friend so cleverly puts it:" it's hearts, not parts". This once again Proves that Homosexuality is more than likely a choice. I respectfully ask the voters as this topic is a very delicate subject for some, to stay unbiased to their preferences and within the confines of this debate where the Con has taken the more logical, credible approach to this matter where as the Pro bases his intelligence on the subject off only people he has met. C. Technicalities In this argument I would like to explain to the Voters why: -"Due to the conditional meanings of the word the Pro provides and defines it as, this is seemingly impossible." -Con The Pro seeks to prove that an individual who is a homosexual will always look for love from a person of the same sex because is their nature. He proceeds to say near his closing: "In regards to my opponent"s comment on not always being homosexual: we cannot know this for certain. We may state that sexuality occurs when one becomes pubescent, however I shall look to my previous point: we do not know if sexuality is nature or nurture. It does not matter when a person realizes their homosexuality. This is not the issue. The issue here I must address is that homosexuality is never a choice."-Pro If my opponent states multiple times in one paragraph that no one can be sure why people are homosexuals, then how can he say its never a choice? If it was never a choice, it would be for a reason that the person could do nothing about such as a biological matter. In conclusion The Con should win this debate for the following reasons: 1. In argument "A" I provided three reasons as to why Homosexuality is a choice. 2. In argument "B" I provided definitions which the Pro must use in order to support his case which Imply the need to choose or for a choice to be made. If his statements define themselves in such a way then the Pro concedes that Homosexuality is a choice. 3. in argument"C"My opponent admits in his argument that there is no way to know why people are homosexual, therefore the Con wins for providing a logical explanation for people who have this lifestyle. Once again I ask the voters to judge this topic within the confines of this debate. Thank you.