The Instigator
ajisthetruth
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is Sexual Orientation Determined at Birth?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 235 times Debate No: 96928
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

ajisthetruth

Con

"Scientists have barely been able to distinguish between the microstructure of male and female brains in adults, let alone between male homosexual and female brains. Attempts to prove such a similarity have been unconvincing.
Male and female brains appear identical at birth, and the only consistently replicable difference, from about age two or three, is their size. Most of the development of the human brain takes place after birth in response to stimuli, learning, and experience. The brain changes so much in response to learning and repeated human behaviors that this could probably account for any differences between homosexual and heterosexual brains which might be ultimately discovered."
Capitalistslave

Pro

I'll first say that this issue is not black and white. I'm not taking a direct opposition to your position, since I see sexual orientation as a combination of being determined at birth and influenced later on by outside factors.

You appear to be quoting something, what is the source for this quote?

The first evidence that genetic and prenatal factors help determine sexuality is with twin studies. Identical twins are significantly more likely to be homosexual if their twin was, in comparison to fraternal twins ( see table 19.2 on page 271 of this source: https://genepi.qimr.edu.au... ) While it is not the case that 100% of the time the identical twin will be homosexual if the other one is, there is an increased chance for it which suggests that some of the determinants of sexual orientation happen at birth. In addition, many studies have found significant linkage between a difference within the X chromosome of males and whether they will be homosexual ( see page 273 of this source: https://genepi.qimr.edu.au... )

In addition, another study done by J. Michael Bailey,Michael P. Dunne, and Nicholas G. Martin published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, showed that people with similar environmental factors, such as those which would cause gender nonconformity, and those with the same genes(such as identical twins) were significantly more likely to be homosexual (see page 15: https://www.researchgate.net... )

Therefore, it can be concluded that factors at birth and factors later in life both play a role in a person's sexuality.
Debate Round No. 1
ajisthetruth

Con

"Among the 31 studies we reviewed, we found a total of 45 persons who experienced a full sexual orientation shift. Some studies also provided evidence that some homosexual persons are able to 'acquire' heterosexual behaviour (86 persons). By this we mean that they gained the ability to interact sexually in satisfying ways with someone of the opposite sex. And we found evidence for partial shifts in sexual orientation (287 persons). In a partial shift, an exclusively homosexual person acquires heterosexual attractions and desires, but with some degree of homosexuality remaining...

Our research has shown the statement 'homosexuals can't change' to be a generalization. Various sources provide evidence for a partial or full shift in sexual orientation. Such evidence does not mean that every homosexual person should change. It does not mean that everyone can change. It does not mean that change is easy. It does mean that, at least for some people, change of sexual orientation is possible."

-- New Directions Ministries
"Homosexuality and the Possibility of Change, An Ongoing Research Project,"
on its website
Jan. 12, 2005
10. Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality
PRO: "Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well, and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified?"
-- Walter Wink
Professor of Biblical Interpretation at
Auburn Theological Seminary
Homosexuality and Christian Faith:
Questions of Conscience for the Churches
2003
CON: "Homosexuality may not have been mentioned by Jesus - many other sexual variations were not, either. But He could not have spelled out the standard for sexual expression more clearly: male to female, joined as God intended them to be. He cannot be assumed to have approved of anything less."
-- Joe Dallas
Founder and Program Director of
Genesis Counseling "Responding To Pro-Gay Theology,"
on the website LeadershipU
1996
Capitalistslave

Pro

I'm trying to look for where you're getting this from, but I can't find it anywhere. Could you link to your sources next time?

I'd like to address this point here:
"Some studies also provided evidence that some homosexual persons are able to 'acquire' heterosexual behaviour (86 persons). By this we mean that they gained the ability to interact sexually in satisfying ways with someone of the opposite sex."

Of course people CAN get satisfaction from interacting with someone of the opposite sex one is attracted to. Anyone would get pleasure from sexual stimulation no matter where it comes from(that's why masturbation is pleasurable for heterosexual people even though it's someone of the same sex as you giving you the pleasure). The question really is: are they truly happy with that? Do they really WANT to be with someone of the opposite sex they're attracted to? Can they ever love that person? These are important questions.

Next I'll address this:
"Our research has shown the statement 'homosexuals can't change' to be a generalization. Various sources provide evidence for a partial or full shift in sexual orientation. Such evidence does not mean that every homosexual person should change. It does not mean that everyone can change. It does not mean that change is easy. It does mean that, at least for some people, change of sexual orientation is possible."
I've heard of cases where someone can have their sexual orientation change, but it's not due to actions of their own. They can't just choose to change their sexuality. That happens on its own, and is determined by environmental and genetic factors as I explained previously.

Neither of these points you made seems to refute that sexual orientation is determined by environmental, prenatal, and genetic factors. So what if homosexual people can get pleasure and satisfaction from sexual interaction with the opposite sex? So what if sexuality changes? Neither of these things prove that sexual orientation isn't pre-determined by environmental, prenatal, and genetic factors. The change in sexuality could have been pre-determined by genetics and environment. One doesn't just choose to change their sexuality. Whether it will be fluid or not would be determined by your biological, prenatal, and environmental factors.

Some scientists argue that sexual orientation doesn't actually change and is not a choice, but rather sexual orientation identity can change and in a way is a choice. [1] [2] Basically, it's seen that since humans are imperfect, they may not know a part of their own sexual identity until later, so they may prematurely conclude that they are bisexual, homosexual, heterosexual, or pansexual before they have experienced all that is necessary to determine one's sexual orientation.

In conclusion, I believe my opponent is failing to argue against the evidence that sexual orientation is determined by prenatal, environmental, and genetic factors. They pointed out that sexual orientation can change, but I believe this can be due to that people are imperfect and my choose to identify with a sexual orientation too soon. Sexual fluidity is a topic that is still debated and most scientists are unsure if sexual orientation really changes or if people's perception of their sexual orientation is what is changing[1] [2]. Even if sexual fluidity is a thing, that is likely due to environmental, genetic, and prenatal factors and is not a choice.

Sources:
[1] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
[2] https://books.google.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ajisthetruth

Con

irst and for most before I start this argument I will state that I am NOT going to cite sources or back up material for a lot of information that I use for several different reasons; either it is common knowledge, common sense, or the information in my argument can easily be verified and looked up at any time on any search engine. It is not rocket science but any information I use can be searched and confirmed on your own time.

First I will start by saying that there is no definitive proof that lower levels of testosterone effect sexual orientation. You never mentioned the female hormone estrogen which some females are born with lower levels of but are not Lesbians. You stated verbatim that "The developing male fetus receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation," yet there are lots of heterosexual men born with lower levels of testosterone so if what you are saying is accurate then these men should be GAY. On the same note as stated in Wikipedia testosterone is a steroid hormone not a sexual orientation hormone and it plays a key role in males in the development of their reproductive organs as well as promoting secondary sexual characteristics such as increased muscle, bone mass, and the growth of body hair. Also falling in love is scientifically proven to lower levels of testosterone in males and increase testosterone in females which means that testosterone levels have intermittent highs and lows throughout the lifetime of a human being. It is our natural affinity to constantly go through hormonal changes all throughout life so why would something that is permanently innate in human development "SUDDENLY" have an affect on sexual orientation even if it happens prematurely during birth? Also on Wikipedia nowhere does it say TESTOSTERONE has "ANYTHING" to do with gender attraction nor in Human Biology which I took in college. The course covers over several chapters of detailed research and scientific information on different hormones, their effects on the body, and what they mean to our anatomy but there is not ONE reputable source that definitively confirms and proves without a doubt your claims about Testosterone having anything to do with sexual orientation; it is all speculation and not fact. Then you said, "The developing MALE FETUS receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation." So I guess only males are born GAY??? And females get to choose... yes I see your logic!

Second I love hypocrisy in debate it's great because I love how you said "In addition, another study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable," then you said "Just like the analogy that is used in my evidence, it is simply like being left handed." How is this statement any different from my pedophilia, scam artist, thief analogy? But I will get back to that later in the argument now is not the time lol! I want to address the fact that you said a study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable... how so? I would have loved to know which study this was and how they were able to prove something like that and what was the deciding factor that proved it, but as expected you couldn't offer anything more than just an enigmatic statement. You also stated verbatim that...

"A study was done by Dr. Ward, who found that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain. The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it cannot change. These are all studies and examples that sexual orientation is, in fact, proved to be ingrained within a person before birth."

"Androstenedione" as it is correctly spelled is the common precursor of male and female sex hormones as also stated in Wikipedia. It does lots of things in the human body but nowhere does it say that it has ANYTHING to do with sexual orientation or gender commitment however there is speculation that it may have estrogenic side-effects but that has yet to be proven because no one has ever had a high enough intake. Second Androstenedione was manufactured as a dietary supplement, often called andro for short. Andro was legal and able to be purchased over the counter, and, as a consequence, it was in common use in Major League Baseball throughout the 1990s by record-breaking sluggers like Mark McGwire. The International Olympic Committee in 1997 banned Androstenedione and placed it under the category of "androgenic-anabolic steroids" and for this reason it is banned by MLB, the NFL, USOC, NCA, and by the NBA. If Androstenedione has the ability to "prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain," as you've stated then why have none of these athletes who habitually have taken this supplement have displayed any homosexual-like behavior or characteristics in any way what-so-ever?? Odd don't you think? And you use this estranged person called Dr. Ward? I looked him up and couldn't find a Dr. Ward only someone named Dr. Ward F. Odenwald if that's who you're talking about who did his research on HOMOSEXUALITY in 1995!! I was 9 years old!! Which was almost 20 years ago! So his research is null-and-void and means nothing because everything he "THOUGHT" he proved has yet to come to fruition! His so-called GAY discovery Androstenedione which was banned 2 years AFTER his research has not had the effect that he claimed it has on MALES and almost 20 years later and counting no athlete who took Androstenedione on a regular basis as a supplement has yet to experience changes in their sexual orientation. You also stated that sexual orientation was in-grained at birth yet you told me in the last argument that you cannot prove that someone who was GAY actually turned straight... that statement is a contradiction yet people do it all the time and YOU KNOW IT! In-grained my AZZ! I've had friends who were GAY and turned STRAIGHT and when asked about their decision to become heterosexual they said at one point they were attracted to the same gender and now they're JUST NOT!! I'm a female and I was attracted to other females for almost 6 years and now I'M NOT!! I'm attracted to guys and have been dating them ever since! People change their sexual preference all the time not to mention I CHOSE my sex partners thus choosing my orientation and was not in-grained with it. It is a personal choice just as simple as one day wanting Cheese cake and the next day Apple Pie!

Lastly I'm going to skip arguing a lot of the stuff you said because it's pointless and I've already won so I will conclude this round by replying with a rebuttal to a statement that you made when you said...

"It is unreasonable to compare homosexuals being born the way they are to relate pedophiles and scam artists to the same cause. There is no way you can justify this. You are going into a different issue. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about sexual orientation, and not ACTUAL CHOICES and POOR DECISIONS people choose to make, like scamming or being a rapist."

My response to that is no it is not unreasonable because the basis of my argument is that there is no such thing as people being born gay... it is a personal choice! I am not going into a different direction by naming people that live these other various lifestyles because this has everything to do with my argument because being GAY is ALSO a lifestyle and it is a lifestyle choice. And you consider people who live as pedophiles, scam artists, rapists and so forth to be "ACTUAL CHOICES" and "POOR DECISIONS" yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not? LMAO Get out of here! There are STRAIGHT men who even do this for the money and solely for the money so get the heck out of here but in your biased logic it can't be an ACTUAL CHOICE or male prostitution it's an "epi-mark" no wait it's too much "Androstenedione" at birth, no no it's "lack of Testosterone"!! Wait it's in the "BRAIN"!! HAHA Which one is it?? Pick one! LMAO!!
Capitalistslave

Pro

Are we looking at the same debate? I never stated "The developing male fetus receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation," anywhere in my arguments. This is clearly a strawman in a very severe degree since I never implicitly or explicitly stated this. You also stated, "yet there are lots of heterosexual men born with lower levels of testosterone so if what you are saying is accurate then these men should be GAY." However I never said there was a guarantee that prenatal factors would cause someone to be gay, but merely that it's one of the factors. My whole argument is how there are at least 3 types of factors in determining sexuality: genetics, prenatal factors, and environmental factors. If one or more of these are not just right, then the person will or will not have a specific sexuality. The rest of this paragraph is nonsense since it just builds more off of an argument I never made and the voters will be able to see that.

You claim I stated "In addition, another study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable," when I never did say those words. I think you might be referring to this: "Some scientists argue that sexual orientation doesn't actually change and is not a choice, but rather sexual orientation identity can change and in a way is a choice." Try to quote people properly. I also never said, "Just like the analogy that is used in my evidence, it is simply like being left handed." nor did you have a " pedophilia, scam artist, thief analogy" that I see anywhere in this debate.

"I would have loved to know which study this was and how they were able to prove something like that and what was the deciding factor that proved it, but as expected you couldn't offer anything more than just an enigmatic statement. "
I already linked to such a study, here it is again if you want: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
I still think you are not looking at the same debate I am.

You just claimed ""Androstenedione" as it is correctly spelled is the common precursor of male and female sex hormones as also stated in Wikipedia. It does lots of things in the human body but nowhere does it say that it has ANYTHING to do with sexual orientation or gender commitment however there is speculation that it may have estrogenic side-effects but that has yet to be proven because no one has ever had a high enough intake. " but then in the quote before that which you offered it says, "A study was done by Dr. Ward, who found that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain. The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it cannot change. These are all studies and examples that sexual orientation is, in fact, proved to be ingrained within a person before birth."

You're being inconsistent here and offered evidence to the contrary, albeit you didn't show a source for this, and even if it is something I can easily look up through google, it's still necessary that when you quote something, you give proper credit to the person who said it through providing the source. Or is that quote about androstendione supposed to be a quote from me? If it is, I clearly didn't state anything about that as you'll find out if you re-read my argument. Again, are we looking at the same debate? The rest of this paragraph is just nonsense since its premise is that I said the above, when I didn't.

You stated, "Lastly I'm going to skip arguing a lot of the stuff you said because it's pointless and I've already won", but again, I never said that.

And then are you claiming again that I said this? "It is unreasonable to compare homosexuals being born the way they are to relate pedophiles and scam artists to the same cause. There is no way you can justify this. You are going into a different issue. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about sexual orientation, and not ACTUAL CHOICES and POOR DECISIONS people choose to make, like scamming or being a rapist."
Again, look above! Where are you getting these quotes that are supposedly from me from? The rest is nonsense again since I never said any of this.

I really feel like this was a huge blunder on the part of con. They're falsely attributing quotes to me, and only one seemed to have actually been a claim I made(albeit, it was misquoted) I don't feel a need to provide more evidence from studies or such because I already have and con has failed to address these. I'll leave it to the voters to decide who has won.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 hours ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: TheShaun// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: Conduct- Con was rude in the third round. Grammar- Pro didn't make any grammatical errors that I remember seeing. Con made a lot of errors. Argument- Pro stayed on topic and made valid points. Con seemed to be copying and pasting random material only partially related to the main topic. Sources- Pro cited sources. Con did not.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) S&G is insufficiently explained. Making more errors is not sufficient reason to award this point. The voter has to explain why one side"s arguments were difficult to understand as a result of how they were written. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to assess specific points made by both sides. This requires more than just pointing out that one side stayed on topic and the other didn"t. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to show how the sources given were reliable, not just that only one side had them.

Note: Conduct really does require more explanation than this, but on that level at least, I would allow it on the basis that the Con"s third round does appear to be pretty rude. In the future, give specifics.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 5 days ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Philosophy123// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, S&G, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro made several convincing arguments. Pro uses superior grammar and more reliable sources. I'm also giving the conduct to him for the fact that he didn't make up what his opponent said like Con appears to have.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. Straw manning an argument is not sufficient basis to award this point " the voter must show how one side was insulting, broke rules or forfeited a round to award this point. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. Merely restating the point allocation is not a reason for the decision. The voter is required to provide specific examples and explain why they impeded understanding of the given arguments. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. Merely restating the point allocation is not a reason for the decision. The voter is required to provide specific examples and explain why they are more reliable.
************************************************************************
Posted by Capitalistslave 4 weeks ago
Capitalistslave
Since I see the instigator is online, (s)he should be able to see my comments already. I'll just accept the debate in 10 minutes regardless if they reply.
Posted by Pigney 4 weeks ago
Pigney
I have not the time to enter a debate right now, so i will post my opinion here:
Fortunately, the way a person's brain is built has little to do with their sex. Their DNA throughout their body will tell you what sex a person is. A baby's blood sample can tell you what sex they are, as can a tissue sample. Their organs are different, the way they develop is different, the way they think is very different, the way parts of their body work is very different. Transgenders are still identified in their DNA as their original sex, because even though they have had certain things added and subtracted from their bodies, their DNA will never change, the way they think and the way they grow will never change. In short, they are female or male from conception, because their DNA says so.
Posted by Capitalistslave 4 weeks ago
Capitalistslave
Also, whoever sees this comment, could you please vote in this debate below? It seems no one is:
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Capitalistslave 4 weeks ago
Capitalistslave
This is such a complex topic, I couldn't exactly represent a side properly. I actually would take a more middle-ground stance, that some things that determine your sexuality are already decided at birth, and then other things that determine it happen later in life. That is why in twins, there's not a 100% chance that if one twin is homosexual, the other one is.

If, however, you want to debate me, I would gladly accept. If you're arguing that nothing about sexuality is determined at birth, then you and I would have two different stances.
Posted by jo154676 4 weeks ago
jo154676
This argument therefore states that homosexuality is a choice
No votes have been placed for this debate.