The Instigator
MoonDragon613
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

Homosexuality is good for society (if determined by genetics)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/7/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,976 times Debate No: 2469
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (11)

 

MoonDragon613

Pro

Before opening arguments, I would like to remind the contender that this argument is based on the assumption that sexuality is an inherent characteristic. It's hardly a far fetched assumption. After all, who wakes up one day and goes, "I'm tired of having intercourse with the opposite sex. Today I feel like incurring the wrath and righteous hatred of many members of society by having intercourse with a member of my sex, just for kicks and giggles" So thus, I am assuming here that homosexuality is a genetic trait.

If homosexuality is genetic, then it is anything but a self replicating gene. In fact, if it's genetic, every generation would be marked by a sharp decline in homosexuals. However, despite this, there exists homosexuality to this day. You would think over 200,000 years, there would be no homosexuals left.

Yet there is one reasonable explanation for why this non replication gene replicates. If a homosexual individual does not replicate, the only way for the gene to replicate is if the relatives of a homosexual individual replicates in above average numbers. Therefore it reasons to stand that the existence of homosexuals causes the society/family in which they exist to propagate more successfully and in greater numbers.
Kleptin

Con

Since you are arguing about genetics and not morality, the title of this topic should be "homosexuality is good for our species".

In order for a gene to be passed on to the next generation, a person WITH THE GENE must successfully reproduce.

In that case, how would a homosexual person reproduce successfully?

The mere fact that homosexuals have relatives shows that biology alone does not determine whether you are homosexual or not.

There are many gaps in your argument and I find it unclear. But so far, you are only saying that homosexuality is good for society because there are more homosexuals today than in the past.

In that case, the fact that cancer is on the rise must show that cancer is somehow good for society?

I argue that homosexuality is some sort of fluke in our biological database. Homosexuality takes genes out of the gene pool because homosexuals tend not successfully reproduce (naturally). Thus, evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality is BAD for our species because it limits successful reproduction.
Debate Round No. 1
MoonDragon613

Pro

"In order for a gene to be passed on to the next generation, a person WITH THE GENE must successfully reproduce."

Precisely the point I made. Homosexuality is probably a recessive trait and thus does not always manifest itself. However when manifested, the individuals who are homosexual do not spawn children. Therefore over time, homosexuality would have wiped itself out UNLESS the manifestation of homosexuality promotes the carriers of the recessive gene to create offspring.

If homosexuals enhance the survival probability of the society in which they live, then they enhance the probability of carriers to create offspring. Its the simple explanation that fits the facts.
Kleptin

Con

That's basically saying nothing.

You propose that homosexuality is evolutionarily beneficial merely on the premise that it exists.

Yes, I understand your point, but your argument is basically "I don't know why carriers can reproduce better than others, but they do".

If you don't propose a mechanism, how is that any more substantial than my saying that it is a psychological issue, or a biological fluke?

All you can really say, at the very most, is that the homosexuality gene has some ability to spread. It does not mean at all that homosexuality in and of itself is good for our society. It neither enhances the species as a whole nor aids in making the population bigger. The only visible trait for homosexuality, is homosexuality.

Please offer an argument as to WHY homosexuality is good for our species, not simply describe what you believe is occurring, since it can easily be explained in other, more believable ways.
Debate Round No. 2
MoonDragon613

Pro

My basic argument is in fact homosexuality must be good for society because it exists. But if you insist to much on providing possible justifications then sure, here are a few:

1. Gay men form stronger unity in the armed forces allowing for greater discipline and thus cause the society in which they are born to triumph in wars and thus procreate.

2. Because of their unique perspective in life, they more effectively help bridge arguments and conflicts in their families, allowing for less turmoil and more success and proliferation.

3. Gay people, because of their orientation, encourages parents with the means to have more children then they might otherwise have and thus introduce more educated people into society. (Aka, we want rich people to have more children since their children will be more likely to be educated and a positive element in society. the presence of homosexual children will encourage rich people to have more children to compensate)
Kleptin

Con

I believe you are mixing things around. In my second post, I specifically stated that we were debating in the realm of biology, genetics, evolution, and the human species.

I established this because you started off talking about genetics and how homosexuality was backed up evolutionarily.

You still have not yet given an explanation as to why homosexuality is an evolutionary good, an I understand that you THINK the fact it exists is good enough, but it isn't. I already argued in a counterpoint that homosexuality could be a biological anomoly or flaw. IF you are correct in your hypothesis, this homosexuality gene that keeps growing will eventually take over a greater and greater percentage of our population until most of the world expresses homosexuality.

I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but it breaks down like this:

If you are right in your hypothesis, homosexuality will be the downfall of man and your point will be lost.

If you are wrong in your hypothesis, homosexuality is probably not determined by the mechanism you suggested, and your point will still be lost.

That having been said, you provided some justification as to why homosexuals are good for our SOCIETY, even though we have been arguing about evolution, biology, and genetics.

"1. Gay men form stronger unity in the armed forces allowing for greater discipline and thus cause the society in which they are born to triumph in wars and thus procreate."

I disagree. There is still quite a bit of controversy with homosexuality in general and even more so in the armed forces. Though you may argue that gay men are more unified, that would isolate them from straight men. This would hurt unity in general

Besides, homosexuality is everywhere. You argument, if it had been correct, would just mean that all countries have better armies. I don't think war is good for society.

"2. Because of their unique perspective in life, they more effectively help bridge arguments and conflicts in their families, allowing for less turmoil and more success and proliferation."

I disagree. This is a generalization. Many homosexual men have just as much stress and drama as straight men. I would argue even more so. Homosexuals have to deal with stigmatization and persecution, and I bet they have many conflicts with their families. If anything, they have enough turmoil in their lives. Having homosexuals in the population doesn't help the population in general, but they may not harm it.

"3. Gay people, because of their orientation, encourages parents with the means to have more children then they might otherwise have and thus introduce more educated people into society. (Aka, we want rich people to have more children since their children will be more likely to be educated and a positive element in society. the presence of homosexual children will encourage rich people to have more children to compensate)"

I find this to be a very poor and slightly ridiculous argument.

I don't think a rich person would ever think "Ahh, I am rich and gay people don't have children. I believe I'll have one extra child since I won't be contributing much to overpopulation".

People have children if they want children. I don't think that in this country, people concern themselves with overpopulation.

And I also don't think that rich people have more successful children. My parents are middle class and I'm much more intelligent than a lot of those rich pansies that go to ivies by handing in their last name and money for a new building instead of a college application and transcript.

Those people eventually die in car crashes or from ODing.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
MoonDragon613KleptinTied
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 Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
MoonDragon613KleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
MoonDragon613KleptinTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
MoonDragon613KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Gespenst 9 years ago
Gespenst
MoonDragon613KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by TonyX311 9 years ago
TonyX311
MoonDragon613KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Conservative 9 years ago
Conservative
MoonDragon613KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SexyLatina 9 years ago
SexyLatina
MoonDragon613KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SamuelAdams 9 years ago
SamuelAdams
MoonDragon613KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
MoonDragon613KleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03