yellowtapesport
New member
lol
atribecalledgabi
Moderator
Ah shit lmao
mryounggun
New member
Just seen this shit. Ima put together my first post in the morning.
mryounggun
New member
Greetings!
Let's skip all the pomp and circumstance and jump right in.
For those of us who are governed by logic, evidence, discernment and facts, there are only 2 things needed to understand why it’s extremely obvious that homosexuals are born gay.
The FIRST thing needed to understand why it is so extremely obvious that homosexuals are born gay is to establish - since the IC is very good at conveniently forgetting or altering definitions of words to fit their own agenda - what ‘homosexuality’ actually means.
Homosexuality - Having a sexual attraction to one’s own gender.
The SECOND thing needed to understand why it is so extremely obvious that homosexuals are born gay is common sense. No one taught me to be attracted to women. Ladies, no one taught you to be attracted to men. As you grew up, your natural inclinations towards sexual feelings for members of the opposite sex simply rose to the surface and revealed themselves. Gay people - who have a sexual attraction to people of the same sex - are no different. No one taught them to be have natural attraction to members of the same sex. It goes back to the age-old question of Nature vs. Nurture. Since no one had to teach you to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, that removes the ‘nurture’ from the equation. What remains is ‘nature’; being BORN already hardwired to be attracted to one sex vs the other sex.
It’s really easy to spout ridiculously stupid things like ‘If people are born gay, how come I’ve never seen a gay baby?!’ or ‘If people are born gay, how do you explain those women who get tired of dating men and just switch to women?’. Regardless of what sort of opinions the majority of us reasonable IC’ers hold about my opponent, I can’t call him unintelligent. Hopefully…he’s intelligent enough to stay away from those piss poor arguments.
We’ll see.
Let's skip all the pomp and circumstance and jump right in.
For those of us who are governed by logic, evidence, discernment and facts, there are only 2 things needed to understand why it’s extremely obvious that homosexuals are born gay.
The FIRST thing needed to understand why it is so extremely obvious that homosexuals are born gay is to establish - since the IC is very good at conveniently forgetting or altering definitions of words to fit their own agenda - what ‘homosexuality’ actually means.
Homosexuality - Having a sexual attraction to one’s own gender.
The SECOND thing needed to understand why it is so extremely obvious that homosexuals are born gay is common sense. No one taught me to be attracted to women. Ladies, no one taught you to be attracted to men. As you grew up, your natural inclinations towards sexual feelings for members of the opposite sex simply rose to the surface and revealed themselves. Gay people - who have a sexual attraction to people of the same sex - are no different. No one taught them to be have natural attraction to members of the same sex. It goes back to the age-old question of Nature vs. Nurture. Since no one had to teach you to be attracted to members of the opposite sex, that removes the ‘nurture’ from the equation. What remains is ‘nature’; being BORN already hardwired to be attracted to one sex vs the other sex.
It’s really easy to spout ridiculously stupid things like ‘If people are born gay, how come I’ve never seen a gay baby?!’ or ‘If people are born gay, how do you explain those women who get tired of dating men and just switch to women?’. Regardless of what sort of opinions the majority of us reasonable IC’ers hold about my opponent, I can’t call him unintelligent. Hopefully…he’s intelligent enough to stay away from those piss poor arguments.
We’ll see.
mryounggun
New member
AZTG;c-9602178 said:
Naw don't think that, B. There are mad different ways to approach the 'No' argument.
Is sexual orientation determined at birth? To begin with sexual orientation is not simply about any feelings of sexual attraction. Sexual orientation is about your sexual identity as a person and where you choose to orientate yourself and how you identify yourself as a human being.
technically speaking this debate question is not asking you if people are born homosexual or heterosexual it's asking you if people are born with a mental identity.
According to the AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
" Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one's sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people."
Now you cannot say anyone is born to any particular sexual orientation because babies/younger children do not have the mental abilities to make that determination children are not born with identities.
The nature vs Nurture argument has not been scientifically extinguished and unless my opponent can prove it has been then it holds as a perfectly good counter argument to his faulty position
Anyone that's been to prison and witnessed thugs niggas they knew on the outside turned into kool-aid lipstick wearing fuck boys when on the inside knows that sexual orientation can be flipped, some of these nigga go in straight and come out gay..... and also partially explains why these nigga who aren't gay end up raping people in prison.
Now if homosexuality was something that was totally genetic for all members of the human species ( as this question and my opponent suggests ) then there would be no examples of individuals that once removed from forced acts of homosexuality continue to engage in more homosexual acts. The nature vs Nurture argument has not been scientifically extinguished and unless my opponent can prove it has been then it holds as a perfectly good counter argument to his position
you niggas really think this nigga has stopped looking for man booty???
and he's about to be out soon.
Now my opponent says that he wasn't taught to like women...... but the dumb nigga cannot prove it because from the moment you are born your mind starts to absorb and process information both consciously and subconsciously. SO we are being taught without any actual teachings and your natural inclinations cannot arise unless the proper environment is provided. This goes for homosexuality and any other form of human behavior. For example a psychopathy can be born but they can also be made. Someone born with all the biological conditions that would predispose them to homosexuality may be totally straight conversely someone can be born a natural faggot BUT not actually be a faggot or have those feelings.
If you are genetically hard wired for something you cannot change it but there are ample examples of people changing their sexual orientation so therefore sexual orientation is not genetically hardwired into one position from birth....... now HE can call this argument unintelligent if he wants to but science and researchers do not agree with him they agrees with me.
technically speaking this debate question is not asking you if people are born homosexual or heterosexual it's asking you if people are born with a mental identity.
According to the AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
" Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as if it were solely a characteristic of an individual, like biological sex, gender identity or age. This perspective is incomplete because sexual orientation is defined in terms of relationships with others. People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one's sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people."
Now you cannot say anyone is born to any particular sexual orientation because babies/younger children do not have the mental abilities to make that determination children are not born with identities.
The nature vs Nurture argument has not been scientifically extinguished and unless my opponent can prove it has been then it holds as a perfectly good counter argument to his faulty position
Anyone that's been to prison and witnessed thugs niggas they knew on the outside turned into kool-aid lipstick wearing fuck boys when on the inside knows that sexual orientation can be flipped, some of these nigga go in straight and come out gay..... and also partially explains why these nigga who aren't gay end up raping people in prison.
Now if homosexuality was something that was totally genetic for all members of the human species ( as this question and my opponent suggests ) then there would be no examples of individuals that once removed from forced acts of homosexuality continue to engage in more homosexual acts. The nature vs Nurture argument has not been scientifically extinguished and unless my opponent can prove it has been then it holds as a perfectly good counter argument to his position
you niggas really think this nigga has stopped looking for man booty???
and he's about to be out soon.
Now my opponent says that he wasn't taught to like women...... but the dumb nigga cannot prove it because from the moment you are born your mind starts to absorb and process information both consciously and subconsciously. SO we are being taught without any actual teachings and your natural inclinations cannot arise unless the proper environment is provided. This goes for homosexuality and any other form of human behavior. For example a psychopathy can be born but they can also be made. Someone born with all the biological conditions that would predispose them to homosexuality may be totally straight conversely someone can be born a natural faggot BUT not actually be a faggot or have those feelings.
If you are genetically hard wired for something you cannot change it but there are ample examples of people changing their sexual orientation so therefore sexual orientation is not genetically hardwired into one position from birth....... now HE can call this argument unintelligent if he wants to but science and researchers do not agree with him they agrees with me.
Last edited:
mryounggun
New member
My opponent walked right down the predictable road of trying to pull the wool over the eyes of you good people by trying to tell you that this debate is about something other then people's sexual attraction towards members of the same race. I laid out in very plain, non-colloquial English what 'homosexuality' meant. I defined it pretty clearly earlier but let me again state the definition - from every source that matters:
Sexual attraction to members of the same sex.
Moving on...
Taking that definition into consideration, we must acknowledge the following, whether we like it or not: What defines sexual orientation is not actual physical acts, but the feelings of attraction. I'll give you an example: A man, for as long as he can remember, has been attacked to other men and men only. For whatever reason - societal pressure, religious beliefs, family prejudice - he does not act on these feelings. He may even get married to a woman and start a family. All the while, he's fantasizing about dicks, staring at constructions worker's asses and watching gay porn whenever his wife isn't around. I think you would all agree with me that this gentleman is HOMOSEXUAL. He has an attraction to members of the same sex, and the fact that he has not acted on those feelings has little bearing. If you would agree that this gentleman is a homosexual, then you understand the concept that sexual orientation is defined by the feelings of attraction that you have...not the actual acts that you commit.
I'd say the information above renders everything that my opponent spewed in his first post - all the posturing about niggas in jail, etc - obsolete, useless, untrue and borderline offensive to those of us with any sort of activity taking place between our ears.
MY OPPONENT SAYS 'Now you cannot say anyone is born to any particular sexual orientation because babies/younger children do not have the mental abilities to make that determination children are not born with identities.'
I addressed this in my original post. When you are born, the determination of your sexual orientation has already been made, and while it may not be apparent immediately, after a certain age this feelings reveal themselves. But they've always been there. Try to keep up.
MY OPPONENT SAYS '...if homosexuality was something that was totally genetic for all members of the human species ( as this question and my opponent suggests )'
Homosexuality is something the is generic for ALL members of the human species? Show me where I said that. If you are going to even attempt to convince these good people that your side of the argument is correct, at least let it be based on something that I actually said, rather than a straw man argument.
MY OPPONENT SAYS 'If you are genetically hard wired for something you cannot change it'.
Scientists have isolated the GABRG3 gene, located in the 15th chromosome, and dubbed it the 'alcoholic gene'. When studying families at the genetic level who have a documented history of alcoholism, it was discovered that this gene was present in almost all family members. It was discovered that while lots of the members of the families studied did become alcoholics, some had successfully stopped drinking and some never even began drinking. This is a pretty clear example of being genetically hard wired for something...but changing it. Next question?
MY OPPONENT SAYS '...but there are ample examples of people changing their sexual orientation so therefore sexual orientation is not genetically hardwired into one position from birth'.
There are no such examples. Since sexual orientation is defined by sexual attraction to the same sex, there can be no true measure of a true change in sexual orientation. Just because a person says 'I don't like dicks no more!', doesn't mean they have had an actual change in sexual orientation. I'll give you an example.
Even if we think there is ANY truth to this at all, do we really believe this queer gentleman actually stopped having a sexual attraction to men? Or is it far more likely, logical and probable that he simply decided to (unsuccessfully) stop trying to commit homosexual acts? And if that is the case - if he never had sex with another human being of the same sex, but still had an attraction to them - would that still make him gay?
You know that would still make him gay. I know that would still make him gay. FuckBoiDreadyFaceZombie knows that would still make him gay.
Let's cut the bullshit.
Sexual attraction to members of the same sex.
Moving on...
Taking that definition into consideration, we must acknowledge the following, whether we like it or not: What defines sexual orientation is not actual physical acts, but the feelings of attraction. I'll give you an example: A man, for as long as he can remember, has been attacked to other men and men only. For whatever reason - societal pressure, religious beliefs, family prejudice - he does not act on these feelings. He may even get married to a woman and start a family. All the while, he's fantasizing about dicks, staring at constructions worker's asses and watching gay porn whenever his wife isn't around. I think you would all agree with me that this gentleman is HOMOSEXUAL. He has an attraction to members of the same sex, and the fact that he has not acted on those feelings has little bearing. If you would agree that this gentleman is a homosexual, then you understand the concept that sexual orientation is defined by the feelings of attraction that you have...not the actual acts that you commit.
I'd say the information above renders everything that my opponent spewed in his first post - all the posturing about niggas in jail, etc - obsolete, useless, untrue and borderline offensive to those of us with any sort of activity taking place between our ears.
MY OPPONENT SAYS 'Now you cannot say anyone is born to any particular sexual orientation because babies/younger children do not have the mental abilities to make that determination children are not born with identities.'
I addressed this in my original post. When you are born, the determination of your sexual orientation has already been made, and while it may not be apparent immediately, after a certain age this feelings reveal themselves. But they've always been there. Try to keep up.
MY OPPONENT SAYS '...if homosexuality was something that was totally genetic for all members of the human species ( as this question and my opponent suggests )'
Homosexuality is something the is generic for ALL members of the human species? Show me where I said that. If you are going to even attempt to convince these good people that your side of the argument is correct, at least let it be based on something that I actually said, rather than a straw man argument.
MY OPPONENT SAYS 'If you are genetically hard wired for something you cannot change it'.
Scientists have isolated the GABRG3 gene, located in the 15th chromosome, and dubbed it the 'alcoholic gene'. When studying families at the genetic level who have a documented history of alcoholism, it was discovered that this gene was present in almost all family members. It was discovered that while lots of the members of the families studied did become alcoholics, some had successfully stopped drinking and some never even began drinking. This is a pretty clear example of being genetically hard wired for something...but changing it. Next question?
MY OPPONENT SAYS '...but there are ample examples of people changing their sexual orientation so therefore sexual orientation is not genetically hardwired into one position from birth'.
There are no such examples. Since sexual orientation is defined by sexual attraction to the same sex, there can be no true measure of a true change in sexual orientation. Just because a person says 'I don't like dicks no more!', doesn't mean they have had an actual change in sexual orientation. I'll give you an example.
Even if we think there is ANY truth to this at all, do we really believe this queer gentleman actually stopped having a sexual attraction to men? Or is it far more likely, logical and probable that he simply decided to (unsuccessfully) stop trying to commit homosexual acts? And if that is the case - if he never had sex with another human being of the same sex, but still had an attraction to them - would that still make him gay?
You know that would still make him gay. I know that would still make him gay. FuckBoiDreadyFaceZombie knows that would still make him gay.
Let's cut the bullshit.
VulcanRaven
New member
Only problem I have with young side is that men turn gay in prison too, so it can be learned under certain circumstances.
