The Instigator
Mr.Lee
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
Burls
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

I think being LBGT is a choice, not 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Mr.Lee
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,168 times Debate No: 62769
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (15)
Votes (6)

 

Mr.Lee

Pro

The reason why I think this is simple. Throughout the course of the development of human life, anything that would prevent the reproductive process would be eliminated if it was genetic, solely because it would die out. This especially pertains to Natural Selection and Darwinistic thinking. I believe that it is a choice, just like your favorite color, favorite band, or something similar. This is just my opinion, and I do not mean to be offensive to anyone.

Source: https://www.youtube.com...
Burls

Con

Proposition: "I think being LBGT is a choice, not genetics."

Contention: It is as much of a choice as we have over the color of the car we drive; that is to say we are not given much choice in the matter. Evidently there is not much favor in purple cars which goes far to prove that color choice is genetic as is choice of lifestyle, by this example.
Debate Round No. 1
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
this is like the first time I ever seen an instigator of a one-round debate win!
Posted by Innerstrength 3 years ago
Innerstrength
Atmas i think con was stating the topic then made a contention that while i understood was not very convincing.
I would agree with you, parkerbryan, MyDinosaurHands and hatshepsut on this one. Sometimes you can tell what people are going to be like from a very early age before sex has anything to do with it.
I can see why there is confusion on the issue though because it seems that alot of women, and men for that matter are being what seems to be fashionably bi-sexual these days. It may however be that people feel more confortable to express themselves and who are we to tell them they cannot love both men and women or whatever the case may be? I think sexuality is on a scale with Hetrosexual on one side Gay & Lesbian on the other so the possibilities are inbetween.

P.s. Pfalcon1318 the L in LBGT stands for lesbian, i just found this out too.
Posted by Atmas 3 years ago
Atmas
Con wasn't really against Pro, it seemed they almost agreed, which made it a useless debate. A gay person merely has the sexual orientation they would have had if they were born of the opposite sex. A gay man is attracted to men in the same way a women would be, except they have male genitalia and vice-versa for gay women. Sexual Orientation is almost exclusively a genetic trait developed in the womb. If sexual orientation was a choice, a straight person could suddenly choose to find their same sex attractive, but the majority of them don't. Think about it, are you attracted to people that are the same sex as you? Do you desire to have sex with them? No? Why? Because attraction is not a choice, it is a predisposition based on your genetic and epigenetic traits. Yes, sexual conduct is a choice, but your sexual conduct doesn't define your sexual orientation, it's the other way around.
Posted by Atmas 3 years ago
Atmas
Con wasn't really against Pro, it seemed they almost agreed, which made it a useless debate. A gay person merely has the sexual orientation they would have had if they were born of the opposite sex. A gay man is attracted to men in the same way a women would be, except they have male genitalia and vice-versa for gay women. Sexual Orientation is almost exclusively a genetic trait developed in the womb. If sexual orientation was a choice, a straight person could suddenly choose to find their same sex attractive, but the majority of them don't. Think about it, are you attracted to people that are the same sex as you? Do you desire to have sex with them? No? Why? Because attraction is not a choice, it is a predisposition based on your genetic and epigenetic traits. Yes, sexual conduct is a choice, but your sexual conduct doesn't define your sexual orientation, it's the other way around.
Posted by Bchatman 3 years ago
Bchatman
Either way it is a choice. No doubt.
Posted by hatshepsut 3 years ago
hatshepsut
Never assume natural selection must eliminate a negative trait. It doesn't. Instead, there's usually an equilibrium frequency for a trait under negative selection pressure, because the trait genes keep popping up again by mutation or by recombination.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
@MDH, this article says nothing of female homosexuals. I'm not sure it's a viable theory.
Posted by Pfalcon1318 3 years ago
Pfalcon1318
@MDH, this article says nothing of female homosexuals. I'm not sure it's a viable theory.
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Saddened by the number of people who refuse TO USE THEIR BRAINS. You have brains, don't you?
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
As being gay has become more acceptable, the percentage of people identifying themselves as gay has risen. It is extremely unlikely that this is because there have been more gay people born lately, rather it indicates that the percentage of gay individuals has always been near the percentage that identify themselves as so currently. This being the case, we can see that most gay people in the past just stayed in the closet, and lived as a heterosexual, meaning many passed on their genes.

Or, perhaps we shouldn't think of them as 'gay genes' but rather male loving genes. So a mother could pass those onto a son through some kind of fluke. More on this idea: http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Anyways, being gay could not be a choice AND not be related to genetics. Think John Locke's 'Tabla Rasa'.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
Mr.LeeBurlsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: either way pro wins. The resolution can be examined as "I think...." which is easily proven because pro can support something that he thinks. The resolution can also be interpreted as "LBGT is a choice, not genetics". In this, pro also wins because con failed to show us that it was genetics, only putting a little (not even sufficient) doubt in that LGBT was a choice. sources to pro because pro is the only one to use sources.
Vote Placed by dragonfire1414 3 years ago
dragonfire1414
Mr.LeeBurlsTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Based on the grading criterion, you won my vote Mr. Lee, congratulations. However I still disagree with your main premise. You made an interesting point, suggesting that homosexuality could affect the genetic evolution process. However, it is simply impractical to assume such a conclusion. Life-long homosexuals are statistical outliers- somewhat uncommon to begin with. Not to mention that when homosexuals produce offspring (either by having a heterosexual experience, surrogate, or adoption) the offspring is not any more likely to become a homosexual based on the statistics that I've read. In order for homosexuality to genetically affect the evolutionary process, homosexuals would need to create biological children - which is impossible by conventional means. Excluding that the homosexuals don't reproduce by having a heterosexual relationship- which would make your point invalid because they are in fact using the "equipment" to produce offspring.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 3 years ago
republicofdhar
Mr.LeeBurlsTied
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: I disagree with Pro's position and his very refutable argument, but Con made a strange counter argument. Intuitively speaking, it is very difficult to convince someone that he does not have a choice over the colour of a car he drives. Points to Pro.
Vote Placed by KatieKat99 3 years ago
KatieKat99
Mr.LeeBurlsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons made more intuitive sense
Vote Placed by MyDinosaurHands 3 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Mr.LeeBurlsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument is totally off-base regarding Pro's contention, and even as a point standing on its own, it is very poor in arguing the Con position on this topic.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 3 years ago
Theunkown
Mr.LeeBurlsTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually gave a proper argument with the genetics while all Con did was say that it is not a choice just like how the colour of the car we drive is not a choice (which is a terrible argument since my family car's colour was chosen by us). Pro says that people with 'gay' genes will not reproduce obviously and therefore people are gay by choice. Con never rebuts this argument therefore giving Pro the victory (also make the debates 3 - 5 rounds). Pro had a source as well, so he gets points for that (though it was really not needed).