The Instigator
WilliamK
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mikesobe
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexuality is not human nature it's human nurture

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 6/29/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 761 times Debate No: 77088
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

WilliamK

Con

Homosexuality is a luxury and a choice. The increased amount of homosexuals is do to an increasingly nurturing society. (This is not about gay rights and whether or not they should have them. That answer is obvious)
mikesobe

Pro

Since when being gay is a luxury and a choice? some of us were born gay. I am a believer that being is human nature. Me and my friends identify as gay don't find any type of luxury in being gay. I don't think anyone in this world find any type of luxury in themselves.
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamK

Con

You see the idea that homosexuality is product of nature is a little silly. If we look at history we see that it's more a product of luxury and choice. Anytime an empire or country has grown so successful that it no longer has to depend on mom and dad having children to go work the fields and then grow up and be warriors in order to go off and protect the common good of the empire homosexualism has come forward. The thing is history has also taught us that empires fall. When this empire falls, and it will, family values will be forced to revert back a marriage of one man and one woman. You see this is why we didn't have big gay tribes of Native Americans running around the plains of America or anywhere else in the world for that matter. The functionality of the family and the ability to reproduce is what nature intended for our species. I don't care if scientists say well look at the gay penguins, or there is homosexuality in hippos. That's beside the point. Penguins and freaking hippos aren't building bridges and structures and flying to the moon. You see all it takes is some sort of natural or man made catastrophe to befall America and homosexuality will be a null and void lifestyle yet again. In other words and more simpler terms, if homosexuality was made by nature then it would have given them the ability to survive and adapt according to Charles Darwin's theory.
mikesobe

Pro

Pro, So you are saying homosexuality is socially constructed. I disagree with you, my friend. If you research the developments in genetics, neuroscience, and cognitive psychology, this confirms that sexuality is indeed mostly a matter of nature. According to Stephen Jay Gould and Steven Pinker that nature is a key player to homosexuality.

In Steven Pinker essay: The Blank Slate- numerous factors can go into why some boys- at puberty- become gay & others do not. Among the reasons are genes, hormones, numerous minor biological & psychological causes, as well as pure chance.

Petter Boeckman said this We"re talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

So if you think being gay is unnatural then let's look at masturbation and oral sex is that not a part of nature too?
In 1991 Simon Le Vay did a research paper which showed the differences in brain structure between homosexual and heterosexual men, was seen by many to prove that being gay wasn"t a choice.. just like I mention in the first round being gay is not by choice, some of us was born gay.
Debate Round No. 2
WilliamK

Con

You've reiterated the fact that you were born gay, however you have no evidence to back up this claim. Due to the fact that there is no evidence to support this claim. The idea of blindly nurturing nature without proof that it really is nature is a dangerous move in the long run. The only reason that I consider it dangerous is because if there is by some chance some way this country escapes some sort of major catastrophe and the evolution of the community of a whole is going to end up with some sort of warped view of themselves that has to no scientific backing. The thing is this empire and country will fall and your lifestyle will be a null and void lifestyle. Because society is going to revert back to the need and functionality of reproduction. You see in your lifestyle the most basic of basic purposes for sex is leisure and pleasure and love. This type of lifestyle flourishes in an over populated society. Which is why I said it is lifestyle of luxury. However in a heterosexual lifestyle the most basic of basic reasons for sex is reproduction. The love and leisure are secondary. So until a woman is pregnant and the doctor can do a blood test to determine whether or not the child is homosexual much the way you can with down syndrome or diabetes. Your debate point of being born gay is a void point.

Second pulling from one side of the nurture vs nature debate and quoting different authors is not a reliable source of debate. For I can pull just as many authors that will say it's nurture and this debate becomes pointless. To nurture your points however saying that I study the genetic, neuroscience and cognitive development of a child that is supposedly born gay is a bit pointless due to the fact that a baby lacks frontal lobe development.(cognitive thought) The child loves its mother but doesn't know why, and it is not in love with childhood friends. For sake of getting a point across we will use your Steven Pinkner point even though he is notoriously biased and only approaches studies from one side of the coin. In saying we look at the boy during puberty is in fact that an unfair test subject due to the fact that 1. unless the child was proven to be a sterile test subject i.e evidence can soundly be shown that the boy has received no contaminating education. (Seeing Bruce Jenner on a magazine) Then the study can not be completed because we can not say the child wasn't mislead. 2nd Genes do not control the human behavior completely. Genes regulate the production of amino acids in the body which combine to form proteins. The existence or absence of a portion can AFFECT things like alcohol tolerance or mood. However affecting something is not the same thing as having complete control over it. In other words alcoholism can be genetic if a child's parents and grandparents were alcoholics and they saw their parents receiving stress relief at the end of a long day as a child. However if that child is moved to an area that alcohol is banned the child will not still be an alcoholic. Homosexuality was thought to be able to be passed on in the early 90's and an abhorrent question was developed on how to abort an unwanted gay baby. Which led to a study where a child was taken from a surrogate lesbian couple after being given up for adoption, the child was placed into a heterosexual household the child grew up straight. Without education the child is unable to pass "gay genes". They simply do not exist.
mikesobe

Pro

mikesobe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by WilliamK 1 year ago
WilliamK
Attraction is not the argument @alice-is-always-right, it's nurture vs nature
Posted by Alice-is-always-right 1 year ago
Alice-is-always-right
No one can help who they fancy, people know what they think is attractive. You can not choose who you like it is what appeals naturally to you and if that just happens to be a man when you are man or a woman when you are a woman then so be it!!

And people have been gay for many years just haven't been able to tell anyone for fear of being penalized for it but society has become more understanding of this so people are able to admit it more.
Posted by WilliamK 1 year ago
WilliamK
@IndependetTruth Yes I am for the statement my apologies for lack of clarity, first debate.
Posted by IndependentTruth 1 year ago
IndependentTruth
I'm confused as to what your stance on the issue is. Are you for the statement that homosexuality is human nurture or not?
No votes have been placed for this debate.