The Instigator
Jzyehoshua
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
Jyohe
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is homosexuality solely genetic in origin?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Jzyehoshua
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 804 times Debate No: 63663
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Jzyehoshua

Con

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.

First round is for acceptance.
Jyohe

Pro

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. Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are more popular, and biological factors may involve a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. These factors, which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation, include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.r

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Jzyehoshua

Con

Jzyehoshua forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Jzyehoshua

Con

Bear in mind that the original premise was that homosexuality is not purely genetic in origin. I can establish a large degree of certainty that this is so by pointing to a recent Gallup poll showing that those 18 to 29 are twice as likely as those 30 to 49 to identify as LGBT, and over three times as likely as those older than 65 to identify as LGBT. According to Gallup:

* 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

http://www.gallup.com...

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.

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

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).

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

Xenoestrogens have been discovered to trigger homosexuality and transexuality (abnormal reproductive organs) in newts, snakes, quail, and chickens.

http://www.livescience.com...
http://www.nbcnews.com...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.sciencedirect.com...

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

http://physrev.physiology.org...

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.
Jyohe

Pro

Due to the original question posted "Is homosexuality solely genetic in origin?" being changed by CONs argument, and Pro ultimately agreeing with Con, Con wins.

vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
Jzyehoshua

Con

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

Pro

Jyohe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
why should it matter, as it's not immoral to be gay.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Has absolutely nothing to do with genes. No activity does.And that is all it is. A sex act.Sorry homo's you are responsible for your actions.
Posted by intellectuallyprimitive 2 years ago
intellectuallyprimitive
Homosexuality is not exclusively a product of genetics, hormones also influence the development of sexuality.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
JzyehoshuaJyoheTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff and Pro agrees to let Con win this debate