Being gay is not a choice

Rebuttal "however people do indeed do nonsensical things" Let"s begin with my opponent"s argument about how choosing to be homosexual wouldn"t make sense, and therefore homosexuality can not be a choice. I responded with the fact that people do nonsensical things, therefore you can turn this argument against my opponent, however my opponent then says in response that people wouldn"t do something so nonsensical as to choose homosexuality to the point where they risk death, because at this point some source would have labeled homosexuality as a mental illness. I have three responses. 1) You can disregard this argument because let"s say for a second that homosexuality is not a choice, however people are still killed by homophobes for being homosexual, they could have lied, but they didn"t, so by my opponent"s logic, this should be labeled a mental illness in the status quo, but it isn"t, thus making my opponent"s argument illogical due to the fact that they currently aren"t labeled with mental illness after choosing to pronounce their homosexuality as opposed to lie about it and avoid the "almost being murdered" part. Pronouncing your homosexuality is definitely a choice. 2) My opponent assumes that being homosexual means you at a high risk of murder, obviously not true unless you"re specifically talking about some places, which would then mean that for some people it"s not true and for some it is, and for those whom it is true, it would a sensical thing. 3) "The APA or some other source would have discovered that all gay people are actually mentally ill people that choose their sexuality and love the rush and thrill of almost being murdered" Because of the 2nd point I made, the fact where my opponent says (ALL gay people) is not true, thus even if some places had high anti gay murder rates, it wouldn"t be considered a mental illness. A mental illness also isn"t restricted to just some areas, it"s a universal thing encompassed by all homosexuals, if homosexuality was the mental illness. So to recap, dismiss the argument against my people do nonsensical things as I proved how Pro"s argument doesn"t successfully refute. Extend my argument. "How can you tell if someone is homosexual?" Now to response to the answer to my question about how can you tell if someone is homosexual, I contest that not only was this inadequately responded to, but my opponent appears to have contradicted herself. When you look at her answer, my opponent says that the way to tell if someone is homosexual, is by seeing if they would have sex with the same sex, or if they get turned on, however in Pro"s final points last round, Pro states "Sexual intercourse does not equal sexual orientation. ", this contradicts Pro saying to ask if they would have sex with the same sex, and also about sexual arousal. My opponent either has to say their response to my question was wrong, or that the statement "Sexual intercourse does not equal sexual orientation. " is wrong. "Conversion Therapy is unsuccessful" and "Sham Marriages[3]" In response to conversion therapy and sham marriages, you can group them together because both are arguments about how it wouldn"t make sense to be homosexual, I have some reminders and one response. Reminder 1: The burden of proof on the Pro is to prove all homosexuals are so not by choice Reminder 2: These two argument is similar the nonsensical argument Response: People do nonsensical things, it"s undeniable, but not only that, you don"t prove that all homosexuals are homosexuals not by choice, at most you only prove these situations you"re coming up with, are not by choice. However you don"t even show how these situations prove homosexuality is not a choice, because of the fact you"re only argument thus far is showing how choosing to be gay is nonsensical, without sufficiently responding to my argument about how people do nonsensical things, thus people choose to be homosexual. In conclusion 1) Pro"s arguments about it being nonsensical to choose to be gay might be true, but it doesn"t logically follow that it means it"s not a choice. 2) You can vote for me off the fact that I turned one of Pro"s arguments against her, which would be a reason to vote for me since it proves my point. 3) All her arguments are contingent on the false premise that people can"t choose to do nonsensical things.