Unless you mean it's a choice whether or not we should suppress out natural inclination?
I still don't see why we're keeping this open. The more people post, the less they bother to read any arguments that have already been presented, which means more stupid will continue to flow into this thread.
Okay, here's the deal:
If anyone of you can tell me how my argument is "bullshit" without redirecting me to a website (which you can't), I'll find all the sources you want.
"BUT O MAI GAWD DATS NAWT HAO U DEBATZ" <- If you're going to pull that shit, then you've just proven my argument.
(User was banned for this post ("Consistently refusing to cite sources, despite multiple warnings. - Real 2nd MD Offense" - Megafan))
It's called doing research. If you are an imbecile of such magnitudes you really can't take the time to educate yourself on a topic what are you doing here.
It's a gene that you are attracted to the same sex.
It's a choice to face that you have this gene.
New thread title idea here
"Reality of Life - Can things be due to a variety of causes or do we only have two falsely definite choices in every matter?"
It's a bit of both. Stop trying to definitely say its 100% due to one, or 100% due to the other. People aren't born 100% gay or 100% straight, but they are born with a degree of inherent preference. With that in mind there is a degree of choice and preference in the matter as well.
I think it's a little bit genetic and mostly what preferences you grow into. Maybe in a way it's just like a girl can prefer older men because she had no father around. I haven't read that much about it but thats what logically feels right to me.
People, if you're going to make a claim, please do what you're supposed to and provide evidence. Otherwise it starts a flamewar.
The offer still stands. Prove me wrong without using a source and I'll find all the sources you want. I'm not refusing to use sources - just simply proving you can't disprove my argument without using them. It humors me, really. The fact that you let some online article teach you how to think. Go to school and learn something about human behavior. That is, unless your school doesn't teach human behavior. In which case, you shouldn't be arguing with me. My argument has been approved, for your information. I'm not just pulling all this out of my ass. My teacher (who understands this stuff better than me or you) has agreed that my argument is very possible (though not probable). If you must know, she went to school for several years studying shit like this.
You are the one bringing counter-arguments to the topic at hand, you are the one citing "human behaviour", therefore you are the one with the burden of evidence. If you cannot provide evidence to back up your point, then your point becomes invalid to the debate. If you provide evidence for your points, then people can use their sources to attempt to discredit your points and sources, ad infinitum until one side is proven objectively wrong or concedes to the other.
Right now you are just discrediting yourself with every argument you make. The people actually using sources are beating your arguments every step of the way and you are making a massive tit of yourself.
Articles are never a credible way to get information. What you see as knowledge is really a person of many beliefs, ideologies, and goals behind it. Anyone justifying their beliefs with an article have no idea how to think independently and their words should be discarded.
It's all well and good being able to think for yourself, but knowledge is more than just thinking for yourself, it's looking at what others have thought, and seeing how you feel about their results, what they found, and if you accept that. For a topic like this sources are a must for arguments. The studies are the results of someone thinking for themselves, noticing something that they think is the cause, and doing research into it. These studies are checked with others to see if the results are valid, and the science is sound. basing your views on a subject off of a study does not make your opinion invalid, basing your views off of nothing does. Thinking for yourself is all well and good, but you need to be able to prove your ideas are actually credible.
Just because you can debate well, that doesn't mean your argument instantly is the most logical.
They aren't "relying" on an article, they are using the information in these articles to back up their points, provide evidence that their argument is sound. Something you haven't actually done. Just because you went to classes about something does not exempt you from providing evidence through sources. You seem stuck on the fact that people are using articles as sources. Would a paper from a study be more preferable? Would a scroll inscribed by the pope himself be more acceptable?
Sources are necessary for a debate like this because we can objectively prove something. But that requires study. Which leads to reports about the studies that everyone (including your precious classes) base their knowledge off of.
Oh and human behaviour is quite a complex thing. taking a class in it isn't going to help you understand it to the degree you would need to win an argument with no sources. That would require years of study, not just the average 2 or 3 years that most courses last.
I'm not going to say it's a Gene but it's definitely not a choice. I have always been gay and never chose to be gay.
This is the real world, your whole logic thing is a strawman. If I write 'if you can push X and it goes faster than it was previously moving, then I can push it infinitely and go infinitely fast', it's logically sound, but I have no evidence for it, and it's wrong.
I Think Homosexuality Is More About Influence
I am very sorry i will never ever do again
(User was banned for this post ("This is not debating." - Megafan))
We can choose practically all of our preferences to some extent. Musical taste, favourite movies, foods, etc. It's all mental properties.
So it's a matter of having a will and desire to learn and understand the positive aspects of aquired tastes. I don't see why sexuality should be the exception.
I personally think it's just based on the way you were raised. Same with porn fetishes and such. Some people might like BDSM, and some of us just look at it like, what the hell? Some people might like watching some helpless Asian woman get her boobs milked, and most people don't like that probably. The point is, it's not really an option or a gene, if you grew up in a family of guys and had only guy friends as you grew up you may be more attracted to guys than anything. Just depends.
Your unsupported opinion is not debating.
Why do you even give a shit, its like asking if your job preference is a gene.
I think it's both.
I mean, there could be people with a "homosexual gene" and there could be people who just chose to be so. There's room for all in the wonderful world of Earthland, where the beavers live and the sun occasionally shines!