Is homosexuality solely genetic in origin?
Debate Rounds (4)
Opponent will argue that homosexuality IS genetic in origin.
First round is for acceptance.
Thus, homosexuality is purely circumstantial and cannot be argued either way(PRO vs. CON). Furthermore, there must stand a mutual agreement that neither party is correct nor wrong. It must stand that there is no reason to debate further and both parties shall be tied.
Jzyehoshua forfeited this round.
* 18 to 29: 6.4% identify as LGBT
* 30-49: 3.2% identify as LGBT
* 50-64: 2.6% identify as LGBT
* 65+: 1.9% identify as LGBT
If sexual orientation were solely due to genetics, then all generations should be equally LGBT... which is NOT the case. Instead this generation is far, far more likely to be LGBT than past generations, strongly indicating this is nothing more than a societal trend, a lifestyle fad that is currently popular. People choose to be LGBT, to experiment sexually, because it is popular and acceptable today.
Furthermore, were sexual orientations solely due to genetics, one should not see ex-gays, for people would not be able to change their orientations. However, even one of the gay rights movement's most outspoken leaders is now an ex-gay. It is not simply that ex-gays exist, but there are entire organizations of them.
Finally, I can also show that there is a circumstantial component separate from pure genetic inheritance. Research increasingly shows that xenoestrogens alter sexual preference across a number of species. Xenoestrogens are artificially produced chemicals that imitate the female hormone estrogen, and are increasingly being used in shampoos, perfumes, and food products, and further contaminate the environment afterward including cows and fish (which then find their way into American diets).
Xenoestrogens have been discovered to trigger homosexuality and transexuality (abnormal reproductive organs) in newts, snakes, quail, and chickens.
That synthetic chemicals in the environment can wreak havoc on the endocrine system of animals is irrefutable when considering aquatic species. Exposure from pesticide runoff, industrial waste, and oral contraceptives in effluent of water treatment plants are the primary sources, with fish, amphibians and aquatic reptiles literally swimming in the stuff, and illustrating the price with abnormal genitalia, increased incidences of intrasex individuals, and infertility.
-Margaret M. McCarthy, American Physiological Society
Thus, there is a sizable amount of evidence to prove that homosexuality is not genetically inherited, but a combination of lifestyle choices and unnatural chemical byproducts, in keeping with my original premise. I have therefore decisively established my thesis that homosexuality is not purely genetically inherited.
Just to clarify, I did not at all attempt to change the debate's terms, and indeed went out of my way in the original post to try and avoid this sort of misunderstanding. I do apologize if Pro ended up misunderstanding the debate topic and ultimately agreeing with the thesis I laid out. The original question was intended to set a Pro side which believed homosexuality was solely genetic in origin, and a Con side (myself) which believes it due to a wider variety of factors including choice and environmental circumstance.
1. The debate's title was "Is homosexuality solely genetic in origin?" The keyword "solely" made clear that it would be debated whether homosexuality was solely genetic in origin, or whether it was the result of other factors.
2. In my original post I specifically stated both what my position would be as well as that of the opponent, to try and avoid precisely this sort of misunderstanding. I stated
"I will be arguing that homosexuality is NOT purely genetic in origin, but rather is a lifestyle choice, a societal trend that has increased in popularity in recent years. My position will be that rather than an immutable characteristic, homosexuality is influenced by circumstantial or environmental factors and personal decisions.
Opponent will argue that homosexuality IS genetic in origin."
I specifically stated that my sole goal was to prove that homosexuality is not singularly genetic but a combination of other factors including choice and environmental circumstance.
Opponent seems to have misunderstood the debate format as evidenced by their first sentence actually supporting my own point, "A simple and singular determinant for sexual orientation has not been conclusively demonstrated; various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, but scientists hypothesize that a combination of genetic, hormonal and social factors determine sexual orientation."
I feel I have decisively proved my original point that homosexuality is due to more than just genetic factors. I have pointed to polling evidence showing that homosexuality is more common among younger generations than older ones, a strong evidence that it is a cultural phenomenon, a lifestyle trend rather than genetic. I have pointed to evidence that large numbers of people leave the gay lifestyle, further evidence that homosexuality is not solely genetic. And finally, I have drawn upon scientific studies showing that homosexuality is triggered by chemicals known as xenoestrogens, rather than being caused solely by genetic inheritance.
It would seem both of us actually agree however that a wide variety of factors are at work when it comes to sexual preference. Maybe it was a bit confusing because I chose Con instead of Pro. Again I apologize for the misunderstanding, I tried to clarify in the original post as best I could what was going on.
Jyohe forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tweka 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: ff and Pro agrees to let Con win this debate
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.