The Instigator
Kreakin
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Jackthemarine86
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

Homosexuality is not natural

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Kreakin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,848 times Debate No: 48141
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (96)
Votes (3)

 

Kreakin

Con

Hello,I saw in the debate of the same title you commented you would like to debate this topic as Pro. I've not got any axe to grind but it is an interesting topic. I would look to disprove the resolution on the grounds of genetic diversity, if you would like to take up the challenge please accept :)
Jackthemarine86

Pro

Hi Kreakin:

I accepted the debate on the premise of education and debate experience. I am very interested to hear your explanation based upon genetic diversity.
Debate Round No. 1
Kreakin

Con

Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate.

I will argue that genetic diversity explains homosexuality on a spectrum from completely gay to completely straight and all levels of cross over in the middle.

This diversity explains bisexual tendencies with a leaning to one or the other gender or a equal balance of both.
I am going to focus on evolutionary traits that have been favoured because they are beneficial to group dynamics. Fornication between all members of several species of monkies is evident in nature, this is a form of social bonding and bout maintaining a pecking order. Take for example:
(1)The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is non reproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual.
Not only this but there are also numerous other pay offs for the group, certainly enough to provide the protection needed for traits to be sustained by evolution, as Bonobos are very close to humans genetically I will reference (2) traits that maintain homosexual,bisexual & heterosexual traits within the group.

The closer the group, the more protected it is and this, as with the Bonobo applies to humans. Or it did until recently in our evolution, now the group is more fragmented and there are no predators and a method of policing society we no longer tolerate this behaviour so much. We are however learning to reason and understand to as to once again integrate people with these genes into there rightful place in society.
It should be no surprise that gay people are some of the warmest an most sociable people in society. They, if my theory stands, are genetically predisposed to seek human contact. This would also explain higher rates of sexual partners.

Given the high rate of sexual activity within the group it is understandable that genes would be well mixed and this accounts for a spectrum of sexuality with balanced bisexuality in the center and gay/straight at each end.


It seems we are possibly not so far removed from our ancestors as we care to believe.



(1)http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk...
(2) http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Jackthemarine86

Pro

I'm confused on the point you're making here. We went from the subject of homosexuality to throwing in monkeys and evolution.

With that being said, the theory of evolution prescribes "survival of the fittest". Due to our continued existence as human beings, I would say it is somewhat insulting to justify certain behaviors based upon the actions of a clearly more primitive species, as we are more highly evolved.

Also, to say that we are not as far as removed from our "ancestors"...

First of all, I'm assuming you're referring to the Bonobo as ancestors when you say ancestors - If so, this idea is preposterous considering the fact that Bonobos still exist as a species in and of themselves, and we have yet to receive any historical or present data showing humans being born to Bonobos monkeys, much less evolving from them. So I fail to see any ancestoral link to them.

Secondly, even if you were right about the ancestoral point, since you're comparing behavior of Bonobo monkeys with that of homosexuals, I'd say this: Given the fact that the homosexual population in the world is notably lower - (3.7% of the population in America alone), I'd say that we're possibly very far removed from our ancestors than you would care to believe.
Debate Round No. 2
Kreakin

Con

You are right to point out there is no direct link to Bonobos as our ancestors, I was really just generalizing the point that we were not so long ago living a similar existence to those not so distant cousins.
This I think is not insulting at all, it is the subversion of the truth that is insulting.

"Given the fact that the homosexual population in the world is notably lower"
That is really not surprising, given the hostility and bias people who come out can face. It also ignores all of the Bi and transsexual populous. When included it is more like 25.6 million Americans (11%).

"approximately 3.8% of American adults identify themselves either as lesbian or gay" (1)




Culture plays a large part in gay & bisexual people denying their true feelings, this undoubtedly effects counts, alongside only counting completely gay people. Completely gay people should be a small minority if a spectrum exists.

(4)"Ward eventually concluded that most of these men were identified as straight because heterosexuality is their culture, as well as a marker of being "really normal", despite any same-sex practices."

To add, if bonobos had an oppressive belief system that encouraged them to discriminate in return for a reward after death, it may cause a similar situation to us. Fortunately for them they have not evolved speech yet to conceptualise this.

"Although bonobos and chimpanzees don't look like us even though we share about 99% of their DNA"(2) they are our nearest brothers in the natural world, alongside chimps. I do not think therefore that it is an unreasonable behavioural comparison. The behaviour goes along way to explain the distribution of traits via genetics. Due to the society we have constructed and the rules we have chosen to live by or have had forced upon us by our ability to use language and reason we restrict our sexual behaviour. I think we would all mostly like to have more sex and if we are honest we are mostly not too fussy who with.



"I'm confused on the point you're making here. We went from the subject of homosexuality to throwing in monkeys and evolution."

I am not looking to justify any actions as you suggest. I do not believe LGBT people need to justify their sexuality to anyone. It is also debatable if we are more evolved, we have evolved alongside all other life and that does not make us more important than other life forms. Many life forms have evolved things we can not do, live without oxygen for example (3) surely they are superior to us in that respect.


The point is that group cohesion as demonstrated in Bonobos demonstrates in a genetically similar life form the benefits of gay and bisexual behaviours to the individual and the group in general. This shows it is very natural and completely normal. I would suggest that a society without gay and bi people would be far more aggressive in their behaviours to one another.

Nature shows us it can be beneficial to society to accept & love our neighbours what ever sex they may be.


The fact that bonobos are largely bisexual is clear evidence that disproves the resolution: Homosexuality is not natural.

It plainly is very natural.




(1)http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...
(2)http://news.sciencemag.org...
(3)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(4)http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
Jackthemarine86

Pro

You are right to point out there is no direct link to Bonobos as our ancestors, I was really just generalizing the point that we were not so long ago living a similar existence to those not so distant cousins.

-Ok. It didn't sound like you were generalizing. It sounded like a matter of fact.

This I think is not insulting at all, it is the subversion of the truth that is insulting.

" 'Given the fact that the homosexual population in the world is notably lower' "

"That is really not surprising, given the hostility and bias people who come out can face. It also ignores all of the Bi and transsexual populous. When included it is more like 25.6 million Americans (11%).
"approximately 3.8% of American adults identify themselves either as lesbian or gay" (1)

Culture plays a large part in gay & bisexual people denying their true feelings, this undoubtedly effects counts, alongside only counting completely gay people. Completely gay people should be a small minority if a spectrum exists.

(4)"Ward eventually concluded that most of these men were identified as straight because heterosexuality is their culture, as well as a marker of being "really normal", despite any same-sex practices."

To add, if bonobos had an oppressive belief system that encouraged them to discriminate in return for a reward after death, it may cause a similar situation to us. Fortunately for them they have not evolved speech yet to conceptualise this."

- Yeah, I didn't include every category of the gay / lesbian community. Nor did I take emotions into factor for the accurate portrayal of numbers. Ok. Even so, if we had all the data at our fingertips, do you think that the percentage population of all gay, trans, lesbian, or bisexuals would far bypass that of the heterosexual population? I don't think so, and if you don't, I don't understand the overall point your trying to make.

- I'm not even going to answer every individual statement you've made in your final argument, because you set up to explain how homosexual is natural based upon genetic diversity, and yet you're utilizing a belief system to substantiate it: Macro Evolution. Not everyone believes in the type of Evolution you're inferring to make your point. That's like me saying that homosexuality is not natural because the Bible and God says so - How far am I going to get if I start like that? If you don't believe in God or the Bible, obviously not very far. Well, if you are not a proponent of the idea that we evolved or are even remotely related to monkeys, you're not going to get far with convincing the other side of the aisle,either.

- I would offer this: If Evolution were true, survival of the fittest is accurate, and your portrayal of the Bonobos monkeys bisexual behavior substantiates a genetic link to the behaviors of gays, lesbians, transgender, and bisexuals in our societies - as being beneficial because of group cohesion, then that would substantiate your claim for "natural". However, data shows that behaviors within that community leads to self destruction, not survival of the fittest, hence not natural.

- For instance the concentration of some of the world's most deadliest sexually transmitted diseases run rampant in a gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual community. That is a product of "survival of the fittest" and "natural"?

- Perhaps the United States and other countries do not allow people in that community (more specifically openly professed homosexuals) donate blood for that reason?

http://aids.gov...

http://www.nbcnews.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

https://www.goodreads.com... - Examples of how people consider macro evolution to be a belief that's true or false - Hence disagreement - Ergo, not a good premise to make an argument.

https://www.goodreads.com... - Examples of how people consider creationism to be a belief or true or false - Hence disagreement - Ergo, not a good premise to make an argument.

Thanks for the exchange of words.
Debate Round No. 3
96 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jackthemarine86 2 years ago
Jackthemarine86
Done
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
or untick "a new comment is posted on this debate" option when leaving a comment..
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
Favorites/view favorite debates - untick notifications.
Posted by Jackthemarine86 2 years ago
Jackthemarine86
I'm tired of getting notifications about a debate that I finished three weeks ago....lol. Anyone know how I can stop receiving notifications?
Posted by Citrakayah 2 years ago
Citrakayah
Begone, troll. If we are not worth your time, prove it... but until then, I'm going to assume that Imabench's theory of DDO being the girlfriend you keep trying to break up with is actually correct for you.
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
Sorry, one trolls enough thanks...
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
You seem to vote based on little to no reason.
Posted by Kreakin 2 years ago
Kreakin
It's been a pleasure...
Posted by GWL-CPA 2 years ago
GWL-CPA
Kreakin,

You lost this debate. Homosexuality will never be normal; it is sick.

Debates are getting worse at this site. 95% are silly and debates by teenagers. The entire site is going rapidly downhill and most members are under 21, probably under 18.

Anyway, I am done with this site soon. This site is a total waste of my time.

I wonder how many believe in the metamorphosis of humans into animals?
Posted by GWL-CPA 2 years ago
GWL-CPA
Citrakayah, you are so young. I am right on the money about homosexual animals. Prove me wrong. You can't.

And, you are so wrong about me being a troll. Are you going to go cry to a moderator again?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 2 years ago
Citrakayah
KreakinJackthemarine86Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con demonstrated that homosexuality in a species of ape existed. Pro did not attack whether or not this was true, though he did object to the idea of evolution. Even ignoring evolution, though, homosexuality among bonobos still proves that it is, indeed, natural, and thus upholds the resolution. Also countering GWL's unsupported source vote.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
KreakinJackthemarine86Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that homosexuality is indeed natural by referencing the Bonobos and their bi-sexual behavior. This evidence is well documented and as such the burden of proof is upheld and Con gets argument points. Now on to some comments regarding the debate. I found the debate difficult to read and sift through as it was dealing with things (i.e. evolution, homophobia, disease) that had nothing to do with the debate. For this reason I am calling conduct a tie. As for source points I am not awarding as both debaters cited sources. S&G is tied as well.
Vote Placed by GWL-CPA 2 years ago
GWL-CPA
KreakinJackthemarine86Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con failed to prove that genetics are responsible for homosexuality. Actually, there is not one valid scientific study that proves there is a genetic or hormonal reason for homosexuality. Homosexuality is a learned behavior, just like heterosexuality.