The Instigator
HyePhilosopher
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
saamanthagrl
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

Homosexuality is a gentic disorder, and should be treated like any other gentic disorder.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
saamanthagrl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,955 times Debate No: 7219
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

HyePhilosopher

Pro

To start i would like to publicly state I am not a gay or homosexual basher, I believe all people should enjoy the freedoms that this country offers.

Let me state a couple things
I have heard many arguments that homosexuals bring up; and one that i want to put to debate is this, Homosexuals state that they are born the way they are.
My stand is this; No you can not be born gay, unless its considered a genetic disorder.
Being born gay is stating that homosexuality is a Gene within our DNA. If somebody states that there "born gay" then that means his/her parents must have been gay, but if the parents were gay, then they would have never married each other.

If the person was born gay, and the parents weren't gay, then that states a genetic mutation within that persons gene's, that is not found within the parents (since the parents had to be hetro to have a child). This is a genetic disorder that should be treated.

-1993 X Chromosome Study, Dean Hamer – also a gay man – said: "…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."
saamanthagrl

Con

Before I begin I would honestly like to say that to anyone who opposes homosexuality, I would like to bring up that unless you have been "homosexual" or "bisexual" that you may never understand how homosexuals feel, when they are told they have a genetic disorder.

I would also like to put out there, that in my opinion "souls do not have a gender"

The real reasons people oppose homosexuality is because they are just not comfortable with the idea, it offends everything religion stands for, gay sex is unnatural, and that the thought of gay sex is repulsive, and they might recruit. Now something I find totally ridiculous is for someone to say homosexuality is a genetic disorder.
I believe that everyone has at least mild homosexual thoughts and its just the nature of any organism and is not a genetic disorder as it can't be inherited and doesn't exist either its all a state of mind.

"-If the person was born gay, and the parents weren't gay, then that states a genetic mutation within that persons gene's, that is not found within the parents (since the parents had to be hetro to have a child). This is a genetic disorder that should be treated."

Now if homosexuality really was a genetic disorder don't you think it would be proved by now? I think the whole idea is to make homosexuals feel as if something is wrong with them, just because the majority of people are heterosexuals. Considering that for most of history, most societies shunned, tortured, or killed homosexuals, it's hardly likely that it was a choice they made. They could no more stop being homosexuals than other people could stop being heterosexual.

"-1993 X Chromosome Study, Dean Hamer – also a gay man – said: "…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."

Now my opponent brought up a quote from a study of genetics causing homosexuality, but Dr. Dean Hamer, a gay researcher, attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. Regarding genetics and homosexuality Hamer concluded:

"We knew that genes are only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors.... Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay." (http://www.dunamai.com...)

Now when my opponent brought this up he failed to provide you with the whole quote, when Dean states that "Homosexuality is not purely genetic" this clearly shows that my opponent has contradicted himself.

Also a follow up to Dr. Dean Hamers research is this, Dr. Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain." (http://www.dunamai.com...)

IN CONCLUSION,
Homosexuality has not been proved to be genetic, nor should it be treated as a disorder. Thanks for the opportunity to debate something so controversial. Good luck
Debate Round No. 1
HyePhilosopher

Pro

HyePhilosopher forfeited this round.
saamanthagrl

Con

My arguments continue :)
Debate Round No. 2
HyePhilosopher

Pro

HyePhilosopher forfeited this round.
saamanthagrl

Con

Vote con~
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
leethal, Homosexuality may be carried as a recessive trait by heterosexuals. The genes may thus be carried forward even if the homosexuals do not reproduce. If the gene helps heterosexuals survive under population pressure, having it as a recessive trait triggered by environment would enhance the survival of heterosexuals carrying the recessive gene. It's true that it would be eliminated as a dominant gene, but clearly it isn't a dominant trait. Note that there are about half as many asexuals (have no desire for sex) as homosexuals. Another recessive trait.
Posted by leethal 5 years ago
leethal
RoyLaytham: "To be in the genes, something does not have to provide a survival advantage, it simply has to not be so great a disadvantage as to be eliminated as a trait. Blue eyes provide no apparent survival advantage, but the trait does no harm. The human spine is not well adapted to walking upright, which is why half the world has back problems. However, the defect is not so severe as to greatly harm the species."

But surely the inability (at least unwillingness) to procreate does provide such a great disadvantage. Blue eyes and bad backs have no apparent survival advantage, but they also have no aparent survival disadvantage. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is one big survival disadvantage, because your genes are FAR less likely to be passed along.
Posted by Meganrihanne1992x 5 years ago
Meganrihanne1992x
this is the most stupid arguement ever

where u first get it wrong is calling homosexuality a disorder
you are basically refering that homosexuality is no different to someone born with autism
Whether someone is born genetically or enviormentally it dosent make a difference you are supposed to accept all people for whom ever they may be..
Posted by saamanthagrl 5 years ago
saamanthagrl
"HyePhilosopher's account is no longer active."

>:(
Posted by sydnerella 5 years ago
sydnerella
Well stated. I don't know your position on the issue or anything, but it is very well stated and helpful. Really good point and explanation. =)
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro is saying that *if* homosexuality is genetic then (a) it is a disorder and (b) it should be treated like other genetic disorders. He must first establish the difference between a genetic variation and a genetic disorder, then he must establish that there is some typical way in which genetic disorders are treated. So far Con is not pressing these issues. She should press them.

To be in the genes, something does not have to provide a survival advantage, it simply has to not be so great a disadvantage as to be eliminated as a trait. Blue eyes provide no apparent survival advantage, but the trait does no harm. The human spine is not well adapted to walking upright, which is why half the world has back problems. However, the defect is not so severe as to greatly harm the species.

There are, however, several possible survival advantages in homosexuality. Note that blue crabs have the ability to change sex due to environmental conditions. If conditions are good, crabs change from male to female to expedite reproduction. Under conditions of stress, they remain male, thereby reducing the population. Possibly stress in the womb tends to trigger homosexuality as a population control mechanism. This is pure speculation, of course, unsupported by any evidence. However, it demonstrates the possibility of it being an attribute that promotes survival.
Posted by sydnerella 5 years ago
sydnerella
I agree, the issue of the causes of homosexuality hasn't been conclusive so PRO doesn't really have a case.
Posted by JackTorrance 5 years ago
JackTorrance
I personally think an argument about gay love is pretty pointless. Scientists can't even back up all the reasons for why humans love other humans in general. It can't be argued for or against that gay people are born gay.
Posted by sydnerella 5 years ago
sydnerella
I have thought about that too. The best reason I have come up with - and it is just a guess - is that it might be a way to control overpopulation. I don't know though. =)
Posted by leethal 5 years ago
leethal
Homosexuality has never really made much sense to me.

In my eyes it must be genetic, but what possible survival advantage does it have?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Epicism 5 years ago
Epicism
HyePhilosophersaamanthagrlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
HyePhilosophersaamanthagrlTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by saamanthagrl 5 years ago
saamanthagrl
HyePhilosophersaamanthagrlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07