The Instigator
morgan2252
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points
The Contender
Tes95
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

Is being gay a genetic?

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...
morgan2252
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,483 times Debate No: 27988
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

morgan2252

Pro

While many claim that there is no genetic for being gay, I feel it is entirely possible. In Gregor Mendel's pea plant experiment, he found that the peas with a purple flower had the genetic of a white plant in them, and that the recessive white flower was simply being hidden by the dominant purple flower. In human genetics, I believe heterosexuality is the dominant trait, while homosexuality is the recessive trait. If it is a genetic, based off of Mendel's research, one can conclude that gay children can come from two straight parents.

So how exactly did homosexuality get into the system? There is the matter of co-dominance. If you breed a red rose with a white rose, instead of receiving the dominant red rose, you may get a pink rose. For whatever reason, if the offspring has both traits, they will occasionally blend together or show both of the traits. Bisexuality, or preferring both sexes, would be an example of co-dominance. So it is possible that a bisexual person could reproduce and pass on the homosexual trait. If one believes gays would die out, he/she is wrong. There are may ways they can pass on their genetics.

Now, I turn the argument over to my opponent.

Sources:
(1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Tes95

Con

(Let me start by saying I am not versed in Genetics nor an expert on them. My arguments will be consistent of why it is more likely a choice than a genetic, effectively giving the other side of the issue's viewing spectrum.)

What is fear? A concern of harm or judgement, the feeling associated with expected a negative event to be inflicted upon oneself. Is fear a negative emotion? Yes. It has been proven that humans do not enjoy negative emotions, and so they deliberately avoid them. So. Given this, when a choice is given to avoid the negative effects causing to be feared, humans take this choice. Now, when something has been taboo for thousands of years, shunned, looked down upon, and viewed as immoral, weak, and disgusting, to be exposed as said thing would be a catastrophic hindrance, not to mention cause catastrophic fear. So if a heterosexual chooses to perform for the rest of their life homosexual activity, what better way to dispel the fear and consequences than to use the choice, the way out, the excuse? The Genetic Argument? Give a man an inch, he will take a mile.

Scientists cannot prove there is a Gay Gene, this is undeniable at present. Scientists also cannot prove Evolution, something that has been tied in with homosexual activity. Both of these are theories that rely, to put it bluntly, on a cell or blood essentially saying "I'm saying you can be born Gay". These cells are not speaking. We have made progress in every other medical field when it comes to genetics, we've cloned animals, we've made advancements in cures and vaccines, but yet? When it comes to "is being Gay a gene", the body is silent. Logic dictates it is silent for it is not a gene.

An argument homosexuals use is that animals in the wild engage in homosexual activity. It is already agreed by the scientific community that no animal on Earth, not monkeys and not dolphins, is as smart as man. Animals are less intelligent, they are however guided by free will, as are humans. Also, when an animal enters heat, why is this? To reproduce. To ensure their species remains on this Earth. Do humans enter heat? Yes. And they reproduce by it. Do homosexuals enter heat? Yes, but what function does it achieve? None. Going into heat is meant for reproduction, biologically. The fact that homosexuals deny females or males reproduction is a self-admitted choice, they have admitted they do not like women or vice versa, men.

There is not any evidence for a gay gene, but there is concrete evidence against it. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can play God and Mother Nature. This is relevant to cheating in human society, as the valid argument by both is that cheating is a willful choice to commit adultery. If one can choose to sleep with another partner, it is only logical to say that this partner is different, therefore the cheater chose something they wanted in the other that the former did not possess. This is lust in it's most basic form, not genetics.

The rule of thumb for healthy relationships is do not cheat. If I can equate cheating to homosexualism, the rule of thumb is do not be a homosexual. There are no benefits to society that Gays offer that weren't there already, in fact, straights provide benefits that homosexuals cannot, most key among them, again, is reproduction. Teaching children how to reproduce is a fundamental duty for the species and for the welfare of the child. Being homosexual goes against allowing reproduction, so the case that you are born gay defeats the case that it wouldn't matter if a gay or straight taught it. Gays dedicate their life to choosing to live outside of the biological and social mandate that not only has God given, that science has given.

Homosexuals do not have evidence for a Gay Gene, and this is why they use loopholes in the judiciary and legislative branch to achieve their goals.
Debate Round No. 1
morgan2252

Pro

First of all, my opponent says, "Scientists also cannot prove Evolution, something that has been tied in with homosexual activity." But the reality is, there is proof for evolution. It's called fossils. How else could scientists provide a detailed map of how one thing evolved into something else? Have you ever heard of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection? The fact is, if you leave religion out of the mix, (which, in my opinion, is not a valid answer for anything) at the end of the day, you realize there is proof for evolution.

My opponent also states, "These cells are not speaking" and suggests that genetics have no impact on how you act. But what about animals like monarch butterflies, who, without any guidance from their parents, migrate along the same path their ancestors did? The answer is instinct. And instinct comes from genetics. Genetics can definitely affect what you do.

Con also says that logic points to that there is no gene for homosexuality. However, my opponent doesn't specify the logic he/she is talking about, and therefore, con's arguments are not valid.
Tes95

Con

Countering what my opponent is saying, there is absolutely no "proof" for evolution, only opinion. Darwin's theory professes the predecessor must be extinct, yet we still have monkeys. What I am referring to when I say "These cells do not speak" is that every other field humanity delves into, the cells reveal information, they speak, so to speak. Except on a gay gene. Third and last for this round, the logic I am using is layman's logic, mathematics, and cause and effect as well as comparative logic. It is not my concern if her logic does not echo mine, I cannot enter a debate without using my own brand of logic. The floor is hers.
Debate Round No. 2
morgan2252

Pro

For my last argument, I'd like to give an example of homosexuality in nature. The fact is, some rams, both wild and domesticated, prefer their own sex while the other is completely available. Gulls are the same way, and lesbianism is common among monkeys.
My opponent did say, "Animals are less intelligent, they are however guided by free will, as are humans." The reality is, animals act based off of instinct. If this homosexuality is instinct, it must be a gene.

Continuing on the idea that they can spread their genes, I would also like to point out that some gays may feel peer pressure to reproduce based on society's general beliefs. In many countries, people would sentence people to death simply because of their orientation. I can easily see how one would reproduce for the sake of avoiding the death sentence.

I really wish my opponent gave more logic that I can work with, but as far as I can tell, I see none.

All I ask of the voters is that they keep an open mind and realize the possibilities that support that homosexuality is a genetic. Now, it is my opponent's turn to argue.

Source:
Alder,Tina, "Animals fancies: why some members of a species prefer their own sex" Science News
Tes95

Con

I do not have the capacity to finish this debate as I am traveling starting tomorrow morning. I only submit the viewers review the evidence.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by oriwoiasfghrt 4 years ago
oriwoiasfghrt
Hi buddy :

HOT SELL Product Brand is below: ==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====
,nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike s h o x shoes,gucci shoes ,true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi jeans,affliction
jeans, Laguna Beach Jeans,ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T-shirts,Christian Audigier T-shirts,Gucci T-shirts,Polo T-shirts,coach
handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel handbag .
free shipping
New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress
New era cap $9
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike s h o x(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
Come back tomorrow for another Daily Dose of Style! Bookmark this page >>
give you the unexpected harvest

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.scnshop.com... ) =====

Recommended Jordan :

Name:Jordan FLIGHT 23 RST LOW-1

http://www.fullmalls.com...
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
"Darwin's theory professes the predecessor must be extinct, yet we still have monkeys."

If you were next to me, I'd punch you.
Posted by Romans1.20 4 years ago
Romans1.20
If we are gay by genetics why aren't monkey gay by genetics or any other animal, since we are all from evolution.
Posted by Romans1.20 4 years ago
Romans1.20
ask a 10 gay people if they ever been touch or if they have a relationship with their both parents and look at their face and see how they act... because they are not going to tell you the truth. I'm gay and lots of my lovers have admitted to being touched. Kids under 25 are gay because of their own human reactions, after the world saying its ok. But 25 and over where touch or have some childhood neglect. Just ask 10 gay people
Posted by Romans1.20 4 years ago
Romans1.20
I believe that study that came out. A srink doctor said out of the 200 clients 97% of them that had be touched as a child or didn't have a relationship with there mothers. He says only like 10 were hgay ad not be touch.
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
You should probably look that up before you drink it down uncritically.
Posted by Romans1.20 4 years ago
Romans1.20
I believe that study that came out. A srink doctor said out of the 200 clients 97% of them that had be touched as a child or didn't have a relationship with there mothers. He says only like 10 were hgay ad not be touch.
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
I think you're close, but I would add to the definition.

Instead of having multiple causes for a singular Homosexual orientation, I believe there are multiple causes for multiple varieties of Homosexual orientation.

Such as:

Born Gay (Genetic) ----------------------------------------------------------------\____ Not by choice
Made Gay (Influenced while the sexual identity of the person develops)-----/

Choice Gay (Lifestyle appeal) *-------By Choice

* - I definitely believe that some people choose to be gay after having lived a straight lifestyle.
I still recall a girl in my high school who was head-over-heels in love with my best friend. She was very feminine,very boy-crazy, very typical. In fact, she was engaged to another man for a while.
15 years later, she joined a feminist movement and got married to a woman. I personally think she identified ideologically with the feminist and just kind of...tried it out and ended up being happy.

I think this type of homosexual is far different from those who are born gay, or are exposed to something environmentally as a child.
Posted by andrewkletzien 4 years ago
andrewkletzien
There should be an option for "both of you are wrong." The false dichotomy of "born gay" vs. "chosen gay" shows the true laziness in today's debate culture. Being gay myself, I have studied this thoroughly. While conservatives tend to look at a headline saying "No evidence for gay gene" from FOX and liberals look at "Gay gene found" from MSNBC, no one seems to think it important to actually read the studies. Is there a "gay gene" per se? Yes. Does it mean its carrier will be gay? No. Much like an individual may have a genetic pre-disposition to cancer and yet never develop cancer, there are plenty of legitimately straight individuals with the gay gene. It is genetics + environment, but yet when this debate is portrayed politically, both sides simply take the parts of the data that they see as appealing to their own personal goals.
Posted by Mateo 4 years ago
Mateo
All of Pros sources came from Wikipedia, that's almost worse than showing no sources at all. Albeit Wikipedia has gained more credibility over the years, it still leads me to believe Pros researching abilities are inadequate and the strengthen of her argument also reflects this notion. Additionally, unprotected Wikipedia articles (like the ones Pro presented) can be edited by anyone as they see fit. And of course, let us not rule out the possibility of homosexuals and/or homosexual supporters changing articles, rephrasing and/or purposely leaving out vital information to make things work in their favor...

I'd say Con respectfully deserves those points. Plus, I didn't have to search very hard to find the evidence Con put forth. There is no "gay gene" and there never will be because humans are built to breed and the only natural way to do so is through male-female relations, thus if there were a so-called "gay gene," it would serve no purpose to us.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Chuz-Life 4 years ago
Chuz-Life
morgan2252Tes95Tied
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: I admit that I agreed with pro from the onset and Con does a fair job reminding us that evolution is a theory and not a given. I have to disagree with Con in that there are some physiological differences between some gays and straights just as there are genetic differences between males and females. The differences are much more subtle but I believe they are there (the genetics to be discovered later) never the less.
Vote Placed by Tetraneutrons 4 years ago
Tetraneutrons
morgan2252Tes95Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Conduct vote goes to the Pro for finishing the debate. In the end, the cons logical process fails to properly refute the pro. Instead of attacking why it's a choice, he proposes a theoretical explanation (IE Fear), which isn't really an argument seeing as it could be any number of things, his jobs isn't to prove what it is rather than what it isn't. His argument on evolution is moot, seeing as evolution is a theory. People fail to understand what being a scientific theory actually means, and should really look it up. The con completely ignores answering any argument addressing the observance of homosexuality in other animals. Lastly the statement that "Animals are less intelligent" is erroneous, seeing as humans are animals.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
morgan2252Tes95Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: He didnt FF, only the last round meaning only conduct. Lets review this debate. Con showed scientists have failed to identify a gay gene (or a genetic influence). Pro has the BOP and failed to uphold it, her arguments did not meet the threshold, cons did. He showed the science is inconclusive and leans towards his side. Pro failed to give convincing points worthy of the Burden. Con wins arguments, loses conduct. He didnt FF the debate, only a round. These votes are unjust .
Vote Placed by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
morgan2252Tes95Tied
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: FF
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
morgan2252Tes95Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited.
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
morgan2252Tes95Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a good argument for this. Since science is inconclusive for the existence of a homosexual gene, logic is a better form of reasoning for this topic. Con made a good argument for why being gay is probably a choice. His "in heat" argument was pretty convincing. And no, evolution is still a theory...