The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Are people born Homosexual?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Iacov has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 712 times Debate No: 97666
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




These is a debate regarding when a person becomes homosexual not if homosexuality is wrong or not. I will be arguing that people are not born homosexual rather they become homosexual through their upbringing.
People: human beings in general or considered collectively.
Born: existing as a result of birth.
Homosexual: a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
Round 1 is for acceptance as for other rounds well anything goes.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and will now make my opening statement.
People like to cite "the overwhelming scientific evidence" that sexual orientation is biological in nature. But show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design. Let"s take one example: In 2000, a team of researchers at UC Berkeley conducted a study in which they found that lesbians were more likely than heterosexual women to have a "masculine" hand structure. Presumably, most men have a longer ring finger than index finger, whereas most women have the opposite (or they have index and ring fingers of the same length). Lesbians, according to this study, are more likely than straight women to have what we might call "male-pattern hands." The researchers concluded that this finding supports their theory that lesbianism might be caused by a "fetal androgyn wash" in the womb"that is, when female fetuses are exposed to greater levels of a masculinizing hormone, it shows up later in the form of female masculinity: male-pattern hands and" attraction to women. But this study makes the same error that countless others have made: it does not properly distinguish between gender (whether one is masculine or feminine) and sexual orientation (heterosexuality or homosexuality). Simply put, the fact that a woman is "masculine" (itself a social construction) or has been introduced to greater levels of a male hormone need not have anything to do with whether she is attracted to women. We would only assume this if we had already accepted the heteronormative premise that masculine people (or men) are naturally attracted to femaleness and that normal (i.e., feminine) women are naturally attracted to men. Herein lies the bias. Many "masculine" women who are heterosexual (have you been to the rural South?) would like us to know that their gender does not line up with their sexual desire in any predictable way. And many very feminine lesbians would like us to know this too. The bottom line is that ideas about sexual desire are so bound up with misconceptions about gender and with the presumption that heterosexuality is nature"s default, that science has yet to approach this subject in an objective way. For a comprehensive examination of the flaws in the most widely cited research on sexual orientation, see Rebecca Jordan-Young"s brilliant book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (Harvard University Press, 2011).
An even greater problem with the science of sexual orientation is that it seeks to find the genetic causes of gayness, as if we all agree about what gayness is. To say that "being gay" is genetic is to engage in science that hinges on a very historically recent and specifically European-American understanding of what being gay means. In Ancient Greece, sex between elite men and adolescent boys was a common and normative cultural practice. According to historians Michel Foucault and Jonathan Ned Katz, these relationships were considered the most praise-worthy, substantive and Godly forms of love (whereas sex between a man and a woman was, for all intents and purposes, sex between a man and his slave). If men having frequent and sincere sex with one another is what we mean by "gay," then do we really believe that something so fundamentally different was happening in the Ancient Athenian gene pool? Did some evolutionary occurrence enable Plato"s ancestors to get rid of all of those heterosexual genes? And what about native cultures in which all boys engage in homosexual rites of passage? Do we imagine that we could identify some genetic evidence of propensity to ingest sperm as part of a cultural initiation into manhood? What about all of the cultures around the globe in which male homosexual sex does not signal gayness except for under certain specific circumstances (e.g., you are only gay if you are the receptive sexual partner, or if you are feminine)? And while I am on this subject, what about the fact the United States is precisely one of those cultures? When young college women lick each other"s boobs at frat parties, or when young college men stick their fingers in each other"s butts while being hazed by their frat brothers, we don"t call this gay"we call this "girls gone wild" or "hazing." My point here is that a lot of people engage in homosexual behavior, but somehow we talk about the genetic origins of homosexuality as if we are clear about who is gay and who is not, and as if it"s also clear that "gay genes" are possessed only by people who are culturally and politically gay (you know, the people who are seriously gay). This is a bit arbitrary, don"t you think?
Just 150 years ago, scientists went searching for the physiological evidence that women were hysterical. Hysteria, by Victorian medical definition, meant that a woman"s uterus had become dislodged from its proper location and was floating around her body causing all sorts of trouble"like feminism, and other matters of grave concern. And guess what, they found the evidence, and they published books and articles to prove it. They also looked for and found the evidence that all people of African and Asian ancestry were intellectually and morally inferior to people of European Ancestry. Many books were published dedicated to establishing these obviously absurd and violent beliefs as legitimate and indisputable scientific facts. Similarly, the science of sexual orientation has a long and disturbing history. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, it was believed that homosexuals had beady eyes, particularly angular facial structures, and "bad blood." Today, we apparently have gender variant fingers and gay brains.
Is it possible that people who identify themselves as "gay" in the United States (again, keep in mind that "gay" is a culturally and historically specific concept), share some common physiology? Perhaps. But even if this is so, do we really know why? Indeed, we may find (as Simon LeVay did) that men who identify as gay share a certain trait"a larger VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalamus, for instance. But how do we know that this "enlargement" is a symptom or cause of their homosexuality, and not, say, a symptom or cause of their general propensity for bravery, creativity, or rebellion? In a homophobic culture, you need some bravery to be queer. Perhaps these personality traits are what are actually being observed under the microscope.
And, of course, there is the time-eternal question: why aren"t scientists looking for the genetic causes of heterosexuality? Or masturbation? Or interest in oral sex? The reason is that none of these sex acts currently violate social norms, at least not strongly enough to be perceived as sexual aberrations. But this was not always true. In the 19th century, scientists were interested in the biological origins of the "masturbation perversion." They were interested because they believed it was pathological, and because they wanted to know whether it could be repaired.
At the end of the day, what we can count on is that the science of sexual orientation will produce data that simply mirror the most crass and sexist gender binarisms circulating in the popular imagination. This research will report that women are innately more sexually fluid than men, capable of being turned-on by almost anything and everything. It will report that men are sexually rigid, their desires impermeable. It will tell us that straight men simply cannot be aroused by men and that gay men are virtually hardwired to be repulsed by the thought of sex with women. Regardless of what else we might say about the soundness of these studies, what is evident to me is that they have been used to authorize many a straight man"s homophobia, and many a gay man"s misogyny.


Thanks for the debate Con.
I'm here to affirm the resolution that people are born homosexual.
This resolution in no way necessitates that *all* instances of homosexuality are genetic.
Simply put, I must show that there are people who are born homosexual.


Given the definitions provided in round 1, I would be affirming that human beings who are sexually attracted to people of their own sex are existing as a result of birth.
But I'm not going that route...

Instead, we all know that this is essentially a nature versus nurture argument, in that Pro is affirming a genetic component to same sex preference while Con negates.

So, I'm affirming that there are people who are born with the sexual preference for people of their own sex.


Humans gotta eat, and they have preferences for food.
Humans gotta have sex, and they have preferences for sexual partners.

Some humans like bitter and sour foods, and some like sweet and savory foods.
Some humans like penises and vaginas, and some like mouths, hands, and anuses.
And of course, some like all, some, or none of the above.

Are people born with preferences?
Do people acquire preferences through cultural, societal, and familial experience?

Both are true.

One can be genetically inclined to prefer certain tastes, and one can also acquire tastes throughout their life.
One can be genetically inclined to prefer certain sexual partners, and one can also acquire sexual preferences throughout their life.

I'm saying that sexual and gastronomic preferences are not exclusively nature or nurture, rather these preferences are some kind of combination of genetic and experiential components.

*Gastronomic Preferences*

The sensitivity and aversion to particular bitter compounds in foods is genetic.

"Sensitivity to the bitter taste of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) is an inherited trait...greater PROP sensitivity was linked with lower acceptability of other bitter compounds and with lower reported liking for some bitter foods. "

They even determined which chromosome has this preference influence...5p15.

"Recent genetic linkage studies in humans have linked the ability to taste PROP with a locus at 5p15"

So, while of course people are influenced by their society and upbringing, there are demonstrated, inherited genetics that incline one to prefer or not prefer certain edible compounds.
People are born with preferences for food.

*Sexual Preferences*

It turns out that a preference for the same sex can be inherited.

"These results demonstrate increased rates of homosexual orientation not only in the brothers of gay men...but also in maternal uncles and the sons of maternal aunts...uncles and cousins share inherited information with the index subjects, but are raised in different households by different parents, [so] this observation favored an interpretation based on genetics rather than the rearing environment."

This trait is inherited in the form of the distal Xq28 which is on the mom's provided chromosome.

"Evaluation of the data by multipoint mapping with the LINKMAP routine of the computer program LINKAGE 5.1 supported the linkage between homosexual orientation and distal Xq28."

So, just like we can inherit certain aversions and preferences for food at birth, via genetics, we can inherit certain aversions and preferences for sexual partners at birth, via genetics.


I therefore affirm that people are born homosexual, even if some are not.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
All gravy man.
Posted by Iacov 1 year ago
I would like to apologize to everyone watching this debate and more importantly my opponent over the weekend I became busy and was unable to write a argument that would be up to my standards due to time issues.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
Why'd you forfeit?
Posted by BernBabyBern 1 year ago
I think it's probably some of both. But that doesn't make for an interesting debate.
Posted by boozeandbabble 1 year ago
Many bonobos (a monkey species) are bisexuals. Were they born that way? I don't know or care.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
Ask your self this is, anybody born sexual ?
Posted by Iacov 1 year ago
Yes I will be arguing people are not born homosexual
Posted by Jocularly_Solemn 1 year ago
You are going to speak as 'CON' on "Are people born Homosexual?"
Does that mean, you want to prove that people are not born homosexual?
Sorry, just got a bit confused here.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.