The Instigator
excetera
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Drtraumaty
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexuality is a psychological issue not a genetic issue

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 345 times Debate No: 96350
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

excetera

Pro

There is too much evidence that homosexuality is psychological and there is 0 evidence that proves homosexuality is genetic. Any evidence given by a homosexual scientist is automatically discredited due to bias.
Drtraumaty

Con

Greetings, my name is DrtraumaTy and I will be debating against you today.

I will finish off this first round that my opponent is lacking evidence to back his claim. Moreover, he does not set any particular examples of "bias" by which he states to discredit any research done by a homosexual scientist. Does sexuality really dictate whether one's research is biased or not? If so, why?

I look forward to the reply!
Debate Round No. 1
excetera

Pro

In this situation of course sexuality does have an influence in research. It is actually outstanding how I have to explain this, but if someone is a homosexual, there is a blatant bias into their research because they want to "prove" that they are born this way. If a homosexual researcher, when doing their research, finds out that it is not a genetic issue, since it does not fit their agenda, they will not acknowledge the fact that they are not born that way and will have to settle with the possibility that they are psychologically "messed up". It is easier for someone to say that they are "born this way" than to admit that there is trauma in their life that has led up to this behavior.

Here is my evidence to back up my claim that homosexuality is a psychological issue:

1.) Homosexuality was considered a mental illness up until the release of the DSM III. On the proposal paper for its removal from the DSM it states " During the 1973 meeting of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) a vote of the
trustees reveled that in the opinion of the members, homosexuality was no longer considered to
be a mental disorder, the change became effective in the 7th printing of the DSM-II (American
Psychiatric Association, 1973). Orthodox practitioners in the mental health profession, felt that
the change in policy was caused by pressures from the gay community and that there was
insufficient scientific evidence to support such a move by the APA (Bayer & Spitzer, 1982). "
INSUFFICIENT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

2.) There are reasons to show that homosexual parents have an impact on their children's sexuality. The New Family Structure Study found that children of lesbian mothers only 61% claim to be completely homosexual, as apposed to 90% from heterosexual families. Clearly that has an impact.
That study is very interesting I will link you to some of their findings: http://cdn.deseretnews.com...

3.) Homosexuality can be linked with being molested as a child. From: http://borngay.procon.org... David W. Purcell, JD, PhD, states from a study that "MSM [men who have sex with men] consistently report more CSA [childhood sexual abuse] overall and more CSA with males than heterosexual men do" Clearly that can have an impact on the psyche of a child. This can easily form a sort of psychological trauma to the children who have experienced this. A manifestation of this trauma can lead towards: replication, vengeance, inclination towards this behavior.

4.) Homosexuality can be related towards the lack of a parent-child relationship. CSNews reported a story with a homosexual child stating "He describes experiencing a great deal of sexual confusion due to the lack of a father figure in his life. He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager.
"I had an inexplicable compulsion to have sex with older males," he recounted, saying he "wanted to have sex with older men who were my father"s age, though at the time I could scarcely understand what I was doing."
This is logically sound because a boy/girl can yearn for a relationship with his/her father/mother. If that relationship is not met they can tend to still have that void, so when reaching puberty if they still have that void it can affect them on how they react towards mating.

There is however no evidence to prove that it is biological. One claim that I can use to counter argue you already is the case of the Collin twins (or any other homosexual identical twins). Jason and Jarron Collins are identical twins. Jason is homosexual, Jarron is heterosexual. If it were genetic, since the two share the EXACT SAME DNA, they would both be gay. In an article 8 major studies made this same conclusion that homosexuality is not genetic because of twins. Here is the article, read it for yourself: http://www.redflagnews.com...

I think I have given sufficient evidence and there are more anecdotal evidence I can give such as Antoine Dodson, but since you asked for EVIDENCE I decided to give that to you. Also, in order to be fair, I did not use any sources that are religiously affiliated. Although Christianity accepts homosexuals at this point, people are still suspicious of their authenticity. I await your HORRIBLE response. Provide evidence, but no bias evidence. Also think about things logically.

ROUND 2
Drtraumaty

Con

Hello again, let's get right to it!

Again you do not point to any evidence in which dictates that one's sexuality determines if there is bias in a researcher's work. What background do you come from that makes you able to make such a blanket argument? It seems to me, that you may only have generalization to back that portion of your argument up - by which, I openly welcome you to try to prove me wrong.

As someone with a Psychology and Statistics credit, I will say this; the background of the researcher does not influence the results of the studies. If you never heard of a "double blind" study, it is when both those conducting the study and those in the study do not know if one is receiving the treatment or the placebo. There would be no way for the researcher to impose his/her bias against those being studied in this case; results are results, no matter if it brings comfort to the researcher or not. An extreme source of bias would come from those participating in it. Wiederman has done a terrific study of the existence of volunteer bias in the spectrum of sexuality; to which I strongly recommend you to educate yourself in.

For your #1 "evidence" figure, you have shot yourself in the foot. Yes, homosexuality is not considered a mental illness; hence it is not a psychological issue. I need not say more.

For your #2 "evidence" figure, http://cdn.deseretnews.com... is not a reliable source. However, the Regnerus study found that "Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents."

For your #3 "evidence" figure, I do not see how sexual violence is relevant to the topic. Again, you utilize an unreliable source (procon.org) and therefore I am having a difficult time perceiving your arguments as fact. I will however take down such an argument with a case by which an heterosexual female, whom was molested by a male, having an heterosexual relationship. Karmilla Pillay-Siokos states, after several years since being raped,

"On the night of my 21st birthday, I got more drunk than I have ever been before or since. At some point in the evening I surfaced from the haze to realize that I was alone with a guy in his room. There was a sudden flashback to the rape. He realized immediately that I wasn"t okay and took me straight back to my friends without touching me anymore."When they eventually ended up making love, "he was soft and gentle and everything that a girl wants her first time to be. In the next three months he helped me to fully appreciate my body and understand my sexuality. That was probably the first step on my healing journey.""

To generalize that being raped makes you homosexual, is false.

In terms of your argument #4, you are talking of a mere child; someone whom hasn't even made it past maturity yet. I find that not to be sufficient evidence, as there are many people whom suffered through neglectful parents that are openly heterosexual.

There is, in fact, evidence to prove that homosexuality is genetic. Sergey Gavrilets and William R Rice reports specific biological factors that contribute to homosexuality; "Throughout the manuscript, A is an allele that has little or no influence on sexual orientation, and allele a masculinizes or feminizes both sexes, and thereby increases the probability of homosexuality in the discordant sex. For example, it is well known that environmental chemicals can produce intersexual individuals in fishes and other vertebrates (Devlin & Nagahama 2002). A feminizing allele a would be one that canalized development towards the female sex-determination pathway. Such an allele would be favoured in females because it protects them when exposed to masculinizing environmental conditions, but this same allele, when expressed in males, would feminize them and could thereby lead to homosexuality."

I look forward to your reply.

http://www.tandfonline.com...
http://www.frc.org...
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...
http://www.contributoria.com...
Debate Round No. 2
excetera

Pro

I do not believe that I have to explain something that is so simple. Of course there is journalistic bias in doing research, regardless of the evidence. A researcher can easily manipulate their evidence in order to meet a certain agenda. In this case a homosexual researcher will obviously make the claim that homosexuality is genetic, regardless of their findings because they are homosexual. Saying "I am homosexual because I was born this way" is easier than recollecting and dealing with trauma that happened in their life. Like I said, I did not source religiously affiliated sources, because there is a chance of bias. Obviously democrats will interpret data differently than a republican in order to fit their narrative. I cannot believe this is such a difficult idea to wrap your head around. Regardless it is not that big of an issue.

1.) You misread my argument, and I do not want to do this again where I tell you my position again because you misread. We have limited amounts of responses so if I am just restating my position over and over again because you cannot read, we are not going to go anywhere.
The reason I mentioned its removal from the DSM 2 is because it was removed because there was no evidence to support that it was not a mental illness. THEREFORE, it is still a mental illness because there is not enough evidence to support that it is biological. Its removal was not based on science but on public backlash. This is coming from the American Psychiatric Association.

2.) No, I am not sourcing DesertNews.com. How do you miss this? It is in the first sentence. I am sourcing "The New Family Structure Study" which "fun fact" was done with the help of Mark Regnerus. Even more of a fun fact, it is his study, yeah it is called the Regnerus New Family Structure Study. And no, he does not say that anywhere. In fact, this study says the complete opposite. If you would like, here is the entire paper with its findings, tell me where you see it. http://scholar.google.com...

3.) Again, READ, I am not sourcing procon.org, I am sourcing David W Purcell, JD. If you read, you would see that there is a correlation between men that have experienced childhood sexual abuse, and men that identify as homosexual. You do quote yourself "In the next three months he helped me to fully appreciate my body and UNDERSTAND MY SEXUALITY". You admit that rape can affect sexuality. So I guess I will take that as a win. That in of itself proves that homosexuality can be influenced by outside influences, but I digress.
I did not say that being raped makes you homosexual, you are saying that I did. WHAT I DID SAY, and I quote "Homosexuality can be linked with being molested as a child", where you see "Being raped makes you homosexual" is beyond me.

4.) No, the person in this example was not a child. How do you read "He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager" and think I am talking about a kid. To be fair on my end I did say "story of a child" but what I meant was his experience as a kid. However you should still be able to read and clearly see that it dealt with his childhood and experience into adolescence. Children having neglectful parents was not at all the point. The point was, and I quote, "Homosexuality can be related towards the lack of a parent-child relationship". CAN BE RELATED. How do you miss the entire paragraph after the quote that talks about the psychology of a child with neglectful parents? Also, I made sure not to write in affirmative language just so that I don't get into issues that you addressed earlier, speaking in broad generalizations.

5.) Your evidence to say that homosexuality is probably the worst evidence I have ever seen. 1.) This research clearly deals with epigenetics not genetics, there is a difference. 2.) This quote is a contradiction. "A is an allele that has little or no influence on sexual orientation" then goes on to say "and allele a masculinizes or feminizes both sexes, and thereby increases the probability of homosexuality" so which one is it, does it have little or no influence on sexual orientation or does it entirely influence sexual orientation. 3.) It is talking about fish. News flash, fish are not like humans. They are not even mammals. This is important because the research goes on to talk about intersexuality. As for example the Barramundi, who switch between male and female throughout their life cycle. 4.) I am not a scientist, but I can tell they are connecting things that are not supposed to be connected. Also, I dont think you understand this quote, you just saw "homosexuality" and "change" and something science related. There are fish, like I have mentioned, that change gender. In the quote they talk about outside chemicals that can cause this change in gender. They might have misinterpreted male fishes being exposed to a chemical and then turning female to being homosexual fish. But this is hardly even evidence because it only says "could"

6.) I love how you didnt even mention the the twins. It is an entire paragraph on its own. Not surprising though when you realize that you do not even read. How do I know this? Well (asides from the times I have mentioned it) you sourced FRC. Little did you know, I actually knew about that research study. Why did I not source it, because it is a christian organization, and I wanted to be fair and not source any group that could potentially show bias (but apparently you do not believe that research claims can be biased). What is funny to me is that you did not even read the publication. On the study it says many negatives of having homosexual parents such as :
Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):

Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
Have lower educational attainment
Report less safety and security in their family of origin
Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
Are more likely to suffer from depression
Have been arrested more often
If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female

Also....

Children of lesbian mothers:

Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
Use marijuana more frequently
Smoke more frequently
Watch TV for long periods more frequently
Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense

I mean come on, can you read? Seriously though, how much of this response was me saying that you are not reading what I am stating. How is that productive to a debate. I am not going to say this again, read what I am saying carefully. You have plenty time to respond so take as much time as you need. I do not want to say this again. Fair?
Drtraumaty

Con

See, you only shot yourself in the foot again. It is very clear that you base your argument under the basis of your emotions rather than the facts that you so attempt to provide to supplement your argument. James Madison would of had a fit with you if he ever saw your argument so ridiculed as you have made it with just your sentiments.

For example, you stated:

"Homosexuality can be related towards the lack of a parent-child relationship. CSNews reported a story with a homosexual [/child stating/] "He describes experiencing a great deal of sexual confusion due to the lack of a father figure in his life. He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager."

And I replied:

"In terms of your argument #4, you are talking of a mere child; someone whom hasn't even made it past maturity yet. I find that not to be sufficient evidence, as there are many people whom suffered through neglectful parents that are openly heterosexual."

And your response was:

"No, the person in this example was not a child. How do you read "He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager" and think I am talking about a kid. To be fair on my end I did say "story of a child" but what I meant was his experience as a kid."

Last I checked, a child is a teenager.

Now, your argument about neglected children becoming homosexual because of lack of a parent-child relationship is complete fallacy. There are many, /many/ people whom have suffered child abuse and are heterosexual; to generalize that homosexuals are homosexual because of their mommy/daddy disputes is completely irrational.

And while the study I quoted was of fish, which I am glad you caught, it outlines the very possibility that homosexuality can very much be genetic in other animals as well.

I did not mention your twin study due to the fact that you did not source it, especially with your reasoning being due to your religious discriminatory values. It's a waste of my time to, especially when there are several twin studies that show one child becoming heterosexual and the other becoming homosexual due to genetic means. One of them is from "N. Kenneth Sandnabba, Nicole Harlaar, Markus Varjonen, Katarina Alanko, and Bettina von der Pahlen... They state;

"We investigated the potential to engage in homosexual behavior in 6001 female and 3152 male twins and their siblings finding that 32.8% of the men and 65.4% of the women reported such potential (p < 0.001). 91.5% of these men and 98.3% of these women reported no overt homosexual behavior during the preceding 12 months. The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior."

If you cannot control your emotions, I suggest you waste away the following rounds and I will very happily do the same. We will let the voters decide whom is right and whom is not.
Debate Round No. 3
excetera

Pro

You are making this very hard to understand because you are not responding to every single point that I am making. There are still things you haven't addressed. It almost seems as though you are not reading them.

1.) This is hard to understand. You used the term "shot yourself in the foot" and the last time you said that phrase it was in response to my point about its removal from the DSM III for no reason other than public outcry. This time it seems as though you have dropped the DSM discussion (about the fact that it is considered a mental disorder but society is more important than science now, apparently) because you don't mention it at all. Fair enough, I guess one point for me.
I love how you use the term "emotions" when in reality, I have been sourcing almost all of my claims. Also you say that I do not provide facts, when in fact I believe that I have been doing the complete opposite, I have been providing facts/evidence.

2.) You say that I am basing my response on emotions, but then you source a quote that has nothing to do with my emotions. You referenced something that I quoted about a guy who was recalling his younger years of how he turned to a life of prostitution because he lacked the void of a father figure. It seems as though you are focusing more on the word "child" rather than what is actually being said. (I would also like to note, so what if he is just a child? Doesn't that make my argument more sound? Because children are more susceptible to psychological effects than adults, which is my point, that it is a psychological issue)

3.) I think/know you are missing a big point. I stated in round 2 "Homosexuality can be linked with being molested as a child". I think you might have had your cursor over the word CAN. I was very careful not to use broad generalizations because I knew that it would lead to this. In fact, I have already said this, in round 3, "Also, I made sure not to write in affirmative language just so that I don't get into issues that you addressed earlier, speaking in broad generalizations." Do I believe that EVERY single child with neglectful parents becomes homosexual, of course not, that is an absurd claim to make. Is it possible to believe that it could have an affect on people, absolutely, as is the case with the person I quoted. The problem is you (I am only assuming based on your responses) believe that everyone is exactly the same, psychologically. I believe that everyone is different, this why I have said certain things "can" affect certain people.

4.) I think you failed to see my point. You cannot compare sexuality in fish to sexuality in humans. Why do I say that? Because fish are completely different. Like I have said, there are certain fish that can change genders, there are also certain fish that can reproduce asexually. Neither of these sexual traits can be found in humans. I also put that "They might have misinterpreted male fishes being exposed to a chemical and then turning female to being homosexual [male] fish". Also, like I have said this study completely contradicts itself "This quote is a contradiction. "A is an allele that has little or no influence on sexual orientation" then goes on to say "and allele a masculinizes or feminizes both sexes, and thereby increases the probability of homosexuality" so which one is it, does it have little or no influence on sexual orientation or does it entirely influence sexual orientation."

5.) "I did not mention your twin study due to the fact that you did not source it" well, that isn't a good way to debate, you don't just not address something because you didn't have a source, you ask for a source (even though I gave you an EXACT example of this with the Collins twins) but then I said (this was in round 2) "In an article 8 major studies made this same conclusion that homosexuality is not genetic because of twins. Here is the article, read it for yourself: [insert link here]" So you are wrong, I did give you a source.
Then you go on one of the worst rambles I have ever seen. Do you even read what you write?
-"especially when there are several twin studies that show one child becoming heterosexual and the other becoming homosexual due to genetic means". Do you think that I don't believe there can be twins that are both homosexual? That's not what I said at all. I questioned how is it possible that if homosexuality is a genetic issue, when two people with the same dna (genes) are not both homosexual? I want you to explain to me how that is possible.
- (coming from a guy that says I don't source, you didn't source, you just put the list of people in the study) The first 2 sentences need context, it is just an excerpt out of a research paper. How was this investigation done? I have no idea, regardless, look at the percentages. 91.5% of men reported no overt homosexual behavior during the 12 months. but 91.5% of the 32.8% of men = ~ .3% of total sample. WHAT?
The last point is probably the most important one, the "The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior" Are you kidding me? Go look back at those numbers and tell me what is striking. "37.4% of the time it is influenced by genetics". So 62.6% of the time homosexuality isn't affected by genetics, garbage. What happened to the 62.6% of the people that are homosexual that can't be linked to genetics? That means they weren't "born that way". Either it has an affect or it doesn't and clearly (from this study) it doesn't have an effect. How do you miss this? This is your own evidence.

*** Also don't think I forgot when you said "especially with your reasoning being due to your religious discriminatory values" um.... excuse me. Where did I ever use religion in this debate. IN FACT, I have strictly mentioned that I would be refraining from sourcing studies that are run by religious organizations ( to remove bias ). I have no idea how you can make such a claim (then again, look at how this debate has been going).

6.) I know I have said this already in this round but since you mentioned it I will again too. I do not believe I have been emotion based in this debate. Actually, I believe that I have been provided a good amount of evidence.

7.) Besides the fish study and this study with homosexual twins, you haven't given me evidence as to how it is genetics. Even these studies you have given me are practically useless. I mean... fish aren't mammals and their sexuality is completely different from humans. The homosexual twins study you gave showed that it isn't genetic because it only might have an effect like ~30% of the time. Come on man, is this all you got? Hit me with something hard, show me something where there is ABSOLUTE WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT evidence that it is genetic. I mean, that's basically the consensus of society, so there must be something out there. Why haven't you shown me it? Just k.o me in one swoop. Can you do it? I don't think you can because there isn't evidence to prove its genetics, but there is evidence to prove it CAN ( I have to capitalize it because apparently you can't read that word ) be based on psychology.

I await your response.

********* Hey I know I kind of did this already, but for round 5 lets just wrap everything up no responding just a closer, because its the last round. Agreed?*******
Drtraumaty

Con

Greetings again,

Due to unforeseen circumstances on my side (outside of the debate) I must waste this round and do agree in giving away the final round to conclude this debate.

It is clear that we both are very passionate over our side, and I have enjoyed very much the opportunity to debate with you. I do hope we get to do another one of these again in the future!

All the best,
-D
Debate Round No. 4
excetera

Pro

In summation I believe that there is too much evidence to prove that homosexuality can be the affect of issues that happen throughout someone's life. Bare in mind, I do not believe that the only reason someone is a homosexual / bisexual is because one of the things that I have mentioned is applicable to them. I agree, not everyone is the same and there are probably other things that happened to someone that could have made a rippling affect in their life that made them the way they are. But please don't think that I believe this is such an easy fix. This is where the psychological aspect of this comes into play. I believe that people that are homosexual / bisexual are psychologically affected. So it is hard for them to change, but likewise is for someone with ocd.

I do think that it is intellectually dishonest to claim that homosexuality is derived from genetics. Also, I do not think that it is impossible for someone to willingly change their sexuality (although this will be a huge struggle). Any research that claims to prove that homosexuality is genetic and there is nothing that can be done about it is immediately discredited because there are too many examples that immediately prove that their claims are false. The fact is there is no proof that shows homosexuality is entirely genetic. And that's okay.

Look, I'm not here to just hate on gay people. If someone is a homosexual and they want to live their life like that, I am not here to condemn them (maybe with the exception of adoption because that can play a part in a child's life). I want society to be honest and especially science. I feel science is being tainted by this societal pressure to not offend (as is the case with the DSM). If homosexuality really is a psychological issue, look at how many people are affected by this, but aren't given treatment. I especially do not like how homosexuality is being promoted and in a sense encourage ( lets say with like actively gay cartoon characters). All this does is make children question their sexuality more and more and will cause more and more psychological harm than healing.

I really enjoyed this debate because I feel as though people look at this do have a lot to their disposal in deciding who had the better argument. I wish that anyone who votes actually takes time to read the log (because it took a long time to write it). I might have missed a few things that I wanted to address but in total I feel like I made a compelling argument for my side.

Now its down to the voters. Good Luck!
Drtraumaty

Con

Keep in mind, I do believe that there is some psychology to it as well. However, at present I also do believe that genetics play a factor. The science is there, whether you desire to consider it or not is completely up to you.

This was a good debate, nonetheless! I wish we could of carried it out further, but due to an real-life instance I couldn't carry out my part.

I look forward to our future quarrels! May the best man win!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by sboss18 1 month ago
sboss18
Con, you really have to be careful with your pretentious overuse of the word "whom". Virtually every instance in which I saw you use it was wrong.
Posted by Sterlimg 1 month ago
Sterlimg
"If it were genetic, since the two share the EXACT SAME DNA, they would both be gay". Your underlying assumption is that heterosexuality is genetic... Why aren't they both straight?
Posted by Dujec 1 month ago
Dujec
"Moreover, he does not set any particular examples of "bias" by which he states to discredit any research done by a homosexual scientist." Zing!
Posted by vi_spex 1 month ago
vi_spex
prison time
No votes have been placed for this debate.