The Instigator
16kadams
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
crb772
Con (against)
Losing
22 Points

There is no gay gene

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 15 votes the winner is...
16kadams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,221 times Debate No: 20283
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (15)

 

16kadams

Pro

This isn't a gay is natural debate, it is just it is not natural through genetics. You argue it is genetics, I argue it is not. DO NOT USE STUDIES OF THE BRAIN, only genes. First round acceptance. Any questions? ask in comments.
crb772

Con

I haven't heard pro's arguments yet for me to contradict.
Debate Round No. 1
16kadams

Pro

The BOP is even.

C1: There is not enough evidence and there is no real conclusion in the scientific community

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." [1] And also most research indicates there is none! Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. [1] So only ones with political interest find gay genes.

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment. [1]

So basically some say gene, others say brain, others say environment there is not proof that there is a gay gene.

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...." [6]

C2: No gay gene

"Nonetheless, our data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation," [2]
This is funny as they say no gene can influence the cause.

Also gay activists admit there is no gay gene:

Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born British homosexual activist who founded the "direct action" group OutRage! that specializes in media stunts such as disrupting Christian religious services, wrote on Spiked Online that he agrees with the scientific consensus that there is no such thing as a "gay gene." [3]

Oh I forgot to say if I put a foot note next to a paragraph or sentence the wording in front of it until the paragraph space is C/P.

Also it is hard to prove a gene and gays as 90% of one study (the main study used to prove the point you are making) false. This info = 4th source.

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. [5]

The stance that 'science proves that some people are born gay' chooses to willfully ignore scientific evidence to the contrary. Thus there are studies which conclude that: " In every case I have examined, studied, or treated, homosexuality was the consequence of serious disturbance during childhood development" [7]

So basically it is not a gene some environmental cause.

Ultimately, no gene or gene product from the Xq28 region was ever identified that affected sexual orientation. [8] So basically no single gene has been linked to gay, only theories.

The reality is, no gay gene has ever been found by scientists. The original claims about a gay gene have been proven false. [9]

If homosexuality is not genetic that means that it is due to environmental factors and therefore can be reversed. In fact, many studies have shown large numbers of gay men and lesbian women have converted to heterosexual relationships through counseling. [9]

SO no gay gene, just environmental factors.

C3: evolution

As you know evolution is survival of the fittest and the thing with an advantage wins. Being gay is a disadvantage as if gay people where everywhere this race would not produce offspring. So even if it did exist at one point it would be dissolved within a few generations. Things will evolve or die, since we are still here chances are it evolved away if it even existed.

=conclusion=

There is no proof regarding a gay gene and there is simply none. Also evolution would have stamped it out a long while ago, vote pro.

sources:

http://www.narth.com... [1]
http://news.bbc.co.uk... [2]
http://www.lifesitenews.com... [3]
http://www.sfgate.com... [4]
http://www.wnd.com... [5]
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org... [6]
http://www.aletheiacollege.net... [7]
http://www.godandscience.org... [8]
http://curtis-cost.newsvine.com... [9]
crb772

Con

While I agree there is no consensus on "gay gene" .. I would like to point out in a study -"New Genetic Regions Associated With Male Sexual Orientation Found"..The term "gay gene" is not used but there are anomalies in gene make up for homosexuals.

Below an excerpt from the study

"In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.

The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone.

The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother."

http://www.webmd.com...
Debate Round No. 2
16kadams

Pro

"While I agree there is no consensus on "gay gene"

So I win my first contention.

"The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone."

let me point out my study:

A new study attempting to replicate Hamer's was released today by the same Science magazine, discrediting the 1993 study. The study conducted by scientists from the Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences at the University of Western Ontario and the Department of Genetics at Stanford Medical School concluded that "data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation." [1]

Basically disproving your study. Also that reasearch as I pointed out are conducted by politically motivated men, and most studies do not replicate those studies.

Also your study says it is because of family. just because being gay runs in the families doesn't mena it linkes to homosexuality:

Previous studies have shown that sexual orientation tends to cluster in families, though that doesn't prove genetics is involved. Extended families may share similar child-rearing practices, religion and other beliefs that could also influence sexual orientation. [2]
Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn't one so-called "gay gene." [2]

"The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother."

1. above I provd just because it runs in the family =/= genetics
2. my other studies disprove this
3. not one gene is linked to being gay as mentioned in my round 2 argument. So this study is false.

C1: not enough proof.

He actually conceded this (therefore I technically win as he said there is not enough proof to prove a gene)

C2: there is no gay gene

here I go:

"People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda." [3]

Saying all studies that link a gay gene are politically motivated.

C3: evolution
.
no rebuttal


==conclusion==

He conceded point one and no response to point three. Point 2 has also been proven in this debate. I have fuffilled my BOP, my opponent hasn't. Vote pro!





sources:

http://fathersforlife.org... [1]
http://www.foxnews.com... [2]
http://www.onenewsnow.com... [3]
crb772

Con

The debate is "no gay gene".It is not about the terminology.. I put "gay gene" in double quotes. I provided proof why there is no consensus on the term "gay gene".I showed the evidence there are anamolies in gene make up for homosexuals which i categorize as "gay gene".

Since your arguments revolve around studies.. let me point out two other studies on "gay genes"

"US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born."

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

http://www.time.com...
Debate Round No. 3
16kadams

Pro

"The debate is "no gay gene".It is not about the terminology.. I put "gay gene" in double quotes. I provided proof why there is no consensus on the term "gay gene".I showed the evidence there are anamolies in gene make up for homosexuals which i categorize as "gay gene".0

You have to argue there IS a gay gene and it exists. Like 100% chance, hence the resolution. You just proved it is not a 100% chance. So you still need to fill the BOP.

"US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born."

My sources indicate that all studies that say this are usually poliitically motivated as gay rights groups and goevrment entities pay them, skewing results. No proof has been thrown at the studies I have shown. Also I have provided 2 alternatives no 3 reasons for being gay that is not genetic:

1. the brain.
2, their enviroment
3. a choice.

probably 2.

Now a few counter studies:

Studies concluse no gay gene [1]


A study to be published in the March 2005 issue of the journal Human Genetics, and available online now, actually undermines the commonly held view that homosexual orientation is determined by genetic factors.

The study’s lead author Brian Mustanski from University of Illinois at Chicago said in a UIC news release that "There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

However, a thorough examination of the actual report reveals no statistically significant findings for any of these DNA regions. [2]

Well, as I have said, there is no gay gene. And there are factors more influential than biology. If you are a man and you grow up in a rural environment, you are four times less likely to have homosexual relationships than if you grow up in a metropolitan area. [3]

from a doctor btw.

Proving that enviroment not genes cause homosexuality.

New research from the University of Western Ontario (UWO) in London, published in today’s issue of Science magazine, has again disproved the existence of a genetic basis for homosexuality. [4]


C1: conceded
C2: proven tice in rebuttals twice in arguments, little response. Proof also in rebuttal above ^
C3: no response drop = consession

==conclusion==

There is no gay gene I have proven this. My opponent ha not proven that one exists. Vote pro!




sources:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com... [1]
http://www.freerepublic.com... [2]
http://www.livingchurch.org... [3]
http://www.lifesitenews.com... [4]
crb772

Con

I categorized the anamoly as gay gene.. The debate is not about the usage of the terminology.. It is about a specific type of gene which is called as " gay gene" that exists.. I proved it by showing you the study that was done to show the anamoly in gene make of homosexuals.

But Dr. Stanton Jones, a clinical psychologist and evangelical Christian, says genetics plays, at best, just a small role.

"The scientific evidence doesn't support it," he said. And he's written a book, "Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation," illustrating his belief that gay men can be converted to heterosexuals.

Dr. Alan Sanders, a psychiatric geneticist at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, is currently heading the biggest study ever undertaken on sexual orientation. He's looking at the genetic makeup of more than 700 sets of gay brothers.

"I think the evidence is pretty convincing already that a substantial contribution to sexual orientation comes from genetics," he said. "It's probably the single biggest factor that we know about."

You haven't provided any one example of a homosexual converting to heterosexual because if it is in the genes they cannot become heterosexuals as they want.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gerrandesquire 2 years ago
gerrandesquire
Evolution? If there is no gay gene, evolution has nothing to do with dying out of homosexuals.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
APA my sources, proving many gay gene studies false and those studies few in number > pro gay blog
Posted by saraandersson123 2 years ago
saraandersson123
http://homosexualbisexualtransgender.blogspot.com...

The [American Psychiatric Association] has chosen to ignore the significant medical research which has documented serious psychiatric and medical illnesses associated with those same-sex attractions and behaviors. This research and that on the needs of children for a father and a mother have been reviewed in several important recent papers from the University of South Carolina School of Medicine and the University of Utah School of Medicine...Well-designed research studies have shown that many psychiatric disorders are far more prevalent, three to five times, in teenagers and adults with same-sex attraction [SSA]. These include major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships. It is important to note that 'homophobia' is not the cause of these disorders, as many of these studies were done in cultures in which homosexuality is widely accepted. Another recent study has shown that a high percentage, 32%, of males with SSA have been abused by other males with SSA.
Posted by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
royal paladin he fulfilled it less as it was =
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
"It's Con's fault for letting himself get cornered with this wording."

Pro wrote the resolution, not Con. Therefore Pro had to prove that that there is not a gay gene. Pro's concession that there might be a gay gene is therefore fatal to his debate position, even though the resolution is probably true.
Posted by Wnope 2 years ago
Wnope
As the resolution is specified, "there is no gay gene" I generally agree.

However, I also would argue that for a majority of circumstances, there is no more of a choice to for one individual gay than there is a choice for another to be straight.

It's Con's fault for letting himself get cornered with this wording.
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
There are cases of identical twins with one twin gay and the other straight, so it's probably not genetic. The same is true of left-handedness -- its not genetic but it's congenital. A complication is that it's not a straight or gay determination. Kinsey defined a seven point scale ranging from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual. Bisexuals are at the mid-point. There might be an interaction between genetics and how the fetus responds to conditions in the womb.

Pro had the burden of proof to establish there is no genetic determination, but he conceded that it was in doubt. That concedes the debate.
Posted by DanT 2 years ago
DanT
Being gay is not genetic, it has to do with the fetus in the womb. Homosexuality is congenital.
Posted by shift4101 2 years ago
shift4101
Contra, I'm going to need a link.
Posted by shift4101 2 years ago
shift4101
Contra, I'm going to need a link.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Angelo 2 years ago
Angelo
16kadamscrb772Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: His arguments where superior and although neither met their burden pro fit it better. Also he had credible and many sources.
Vote Placed by Double_R 2 years ago
Double_R
16kadamscrb772Tied
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: This entire debate was basically a "my link vs. your link" battle. Very few arguments were actually made, but none of them were made by Con. It is fair to say that Pro didn't meet his burden of proof, but Con also has a burden to make at least some arguments which he didn't even attempt until the last round. Since neither met their BoP, victory goes to the debater who made the better arguments. Con didn’t even bother, Pro did, so Pro get the points.
Vote Placed by LiberalHoyaLawya 2 years ago
LiberalHoyaLawya
16kadamscrb772Tied
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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: In a debate centered around an empirical scientific question, Pro simply supplied more scientific evidence. I support gay rights as strongly as anybody, but Pro won this debate.
Vote Placed by Marauder 2 years ago
Marauder
16kadamscrb772Tied
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 almost gave conduct Pro also as it seemed like Con wasn't really trying in this debate. Pro gave very thorough arguments covering 3 contentions to which Con conceded most of and barely responded to the other. But ultimately conduct point should reflect the respectfulness and not the effort.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 2 years ago
Lordknukle
16kadamscrb772Tied
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 Checkmark--1 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: Pro successfully showed that there is no one gay gene, which is what the resolution implies. Con tried to show that there MIGHT be a match, but Pro's studies of the fact that there is no one gene proved that the opposite is most likely true. Arguments and sources to Pro. Spelling and grammar was O.K. on both sides but Pro's was on average, a tad better.
Vote Placed by youngpolitic 2 years ago
youngpolitic
16kadamscrb772Tied
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: Pro proved that there is no "gay gene" and all Con did was show that there could be genetic anomolies that affect sexual orientation but there is no actual "Gay gene" which was the resolution.
Vote Placed by OberHerr 2 years ago
OberHerr
16kadamscrb772Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter OMGJustinBeiber. I WILL take this away as soon as she does.
Vote Placed by Contra 2 years ago
Contra
16kadamscrb772Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Close but both sides had some things wrong
Vote Placed by OMGJustinBieber 2 years ago
OMGJustinBieber
16kadamscrb772Tied
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: Counter votebomb LK.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
16kadamscrb772Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro does not fulfill his burden of proof. He explicitly states that he must prove conclusively that there is no link to genetics as per the stipulations of the resolution, but his arguments only claim that we are not certain if there is a link. In addition, Con explicitly proves that there are some genetic effects, meaning that he wins the debate. I gave conduct to con because pro attempts to unfairly shift the burden of proof onto him, which was sneaky but unfair. I also countered Ron-Paul vb