The Instigator
StevenDixon
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Badtothebone
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics.

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 2 votes the winner is...
StevenDixon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,422 times Debate No: 33479
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

StevenDixon

Pro

I will be arguing that there is strong evidence that genetics play a huge role in the sexual orientation of homosexuals.

Burden of proof will be on me.
Badtothebone

Con

Really, genetics? okay well first off, homosexuals has NOTHING to do with genetics no matter how much evidence there is. A straight guy can easily go homosexual or any other sexual by his choice. Choosing which role you want to play as has nothing to do with DNA and it doesn't run thru the family.
Debate Round No. 1
StevenDixon

Pro

I would like to thank con for accepting the debate.

First I would like to point out that Con's position is not based on evidence or reason but on a gut feeling he has or a misinterpretation of anecdotal experiences he's had. Sexual orientation deals with preference and attraction which don't bend at will but are conditioned through a combination of genetics and environment. As a sort of tongue and cheek demonstration that sexual orientation doesn't change at our whim I would ask our audience to force themselves to find this thing attractive(of course applying to people that don't find it attractive)
[IMG]http://www.funnypica.com...[/IMG]
http://www.funnypica.com...

In a study it was found that 52% of cases in which an identical twin was homosexual, the other was also a homosexual. You may say, yes but that's because they're raised in the same environment, but the same study showed that only 22% of cases in which a fraternal twin was homosexual the other was homosexual. This is clear evidence that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality.
http://www.nytimes.com...

Studies have shown that the long arm of x chromosome Xq28 increases the odds that a male will be homosexual.
http://www.nature.com...
Badtothebone

Con

The evidence you had was a theory, not a proven fact. I mean its like saying that a person who is a comidian, his reason for doing so is in his genetics. It's in our instintics that every one of us, yes including the other sexuals, was to be paired with the opposite sex. If it is indeed in the genetics the why would the genetic makeup of a gay man not have the qualities of a woman. He can't reproduce if he is only attracted to men so why would his DNA make him a guy? The thing is, it doesn't make since for a GENETICALLY homosexual not be able to reproduce with other GENETICALLY homosexuals.
Debate Round No. 2
StevenDixon

Pro

My evidence is statistical analysis that shows sharing specific genes increases the probability that you will find the same sex attractive. The topic of the debate was not that sexual orientation is 100% determined by genetics but that genetics do infact play a role which is demonstrable by the evidence I gave. I would like to point out that my opponent has done nothing to show the evidence is in error.

[b]"It's in our instintics that every one of us, yes including the other sexuals, was to be paired with the opposite sex."[/b]

This statement is very vague, if the claim is that as a matter of instinct we are [u]all[/u] attracted to the opposite sex then this is demonstrably false....as gay people actually exist.

[b]"If it is indeed in the genetics the why would the genetic makeup of a gay man not have the qualities of a woman.[/b]

Sexual orientation and sexual Identity are two separate issues. There are men with gender identity disorder(brain of woman, feels like they're a woman) who are only attracted to woman. Likewise there are masculine men that are attracted to other men. I would like to point out you never explained why genetics playing a role in sexual orientation would necessary require that gay man would have the qualities.

[b]"He can't reproduce if he is only attracted to men so why would his DNA make him a guy?"[/b]

Homosexuals are not sterile.

[b]The thing is, it doesn't make since for a GENETICALLY homosexual not be able to reproduce with other GENETICALLY homosexuals.[/b]

Con never explains this statement, just merely asserts it.

The majority of con's points are non sequitur and are borderline incoherent. He has done nothing to counter the strong link between genetics and sexual orientation I have provided.
Badtothebone

Con

I mean its soooo obvious. ITS SO OBVIOUS. what you said about the man with the brain of a woman, that's a disorder, its not genetic. There is no confirmed or discovered gene that determines who YOU decide to be. Its somebody choosing their own lifestyle, genetics for the 5000th time cannot possibly effect sexuality. the parents of the offspring that is a homosexual, in this case, are straight, and their entire line of ancestors are straight. How come none of them are homo or some other sexual. Oh that's right, BECAUSE YOU CANT PASS DOWN A "POSSIBLE HOMO TRAIT OR GENE" DOWN TO OFFSPRING. because there isn't one and if it is, don't you think they would have found that out by now? vote for con
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vitohasastrat 3 years ago
vitohasastrat
Con's making terrible arguments. Clear winner here.
Posted by StevenDixon 3 years ago
StevenDixon
Can you point to the highschool textbook that says homosexuals choose to be gay? Thanks.

Professor Steven Pinker went to highschool, he has similar views.
Posted by Badtothebone 3 years ago
Badtothebone
I don't need evidence because its common knowledge, you obviously didn't go to high school
Posted by StevenDixon 3 years ago
StevenDixon
"I'm right because I'm right no matter how much evidence to the contrary is given"

Can't reason with a person like this.
Posted by Badtothebone 3 years ago
Badtothebone
You aren't getting the point but its not going anywhere. Those in your comment u said that can't reproduce but their ancestors could reproduce is wayyyyyyyy different from sexuality. They had a mutation or a mishap in the genetic pool. Sexuality however is not a mutation, it's not a disorder, it's not formed by a sperm and egg but indeed by the environment and is not passed down, no matter what other people say in their "books".
Posted by StevenDixon 3 years ago
StevenDixon
All of your points and lines of reasoning are based on misconceptions that have been long destroyed.
Posted by StevenDixon 3 years ago
StevenDixon
Disorders often come from problems in genetics. There is no evidence that you "decide" your personality but rather you are your personality. I suggest you read The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker so that you get a better grasp on how genetics can effect our desires, decisions, and personality. People that have genetic conditions which kill them before they can reproduce also had ancestors that could reproduce, how come none of them had this genetic condition?

Like I said, sexual orientation is most probably a combination of both genetics and environment, there isn't a gay gene but genes that increase the probability that you are gay.
Posted by Badtothebone 3 years ago
Badtothebone
I mean its soooo obvious. ITS SO OBVIOUS. what you said about the man with the brain of a woman, that's a disorder, its not genetic. There is no confirmed or discovered gene that determines who YOU decide to be. Its somebody choosing their own lifestyle, genetics for the 5000th time cannot possibly effect sexuality. the parents of the offspring that is a homosexual, in this case, are straight, and their entire line of ancestors are straight. How come none of them are homo or some other sexual. Oh that's right, BECAUSE YOU CANT PASS DOWN A "POSSIBLE HOMO TRAIT OR GENE" DOWN TO OFFSPRING. because there isn't one and if it is, don't you think they would have found that out by now?
Posted by StevenDixon 3 years ago
StevenDixon
I'm missing something, how do you make letter bold? or underline?
Posted by StevenDixon 3 years ago
StevenDixon
You guys can agree with each other all you like, there's clear evidence that genetics play a role. No where did I say it's the only or pure cause, neither is that the topic at hand.

Badtothebone, here's a tip...if you're attracted to both woman and men allowing both to be equally attractive to you...you're bisexual. Sexual orientation isn't black and white, it's more of a scale with most people being more to the straight side. The I represents roughly where most people sit.

Straight_______I___________________________Bi____________________________________Gay
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jackintosh 3 years ago
jackintosh
StevenDixonBadtotheboneTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Absolutely no evidence to go against the claim. And the idea of "don't you think they would have found that out by now?" Is simple minded. They are obviously working on it, hence the evidence presented. but people like you wouldn't consider evidence in the first place.
Vote Placed by drhead 3 years ago
drhead
StevenDixonBadtotheboneTied
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 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 had an argument based entirely on assertions and was very rude in this debate. He made no attempt to defend his arguments, other than insisting that they were true, "no matter how much evidence there is." His points show a severe lack of understanding of science, especially for someone who claims to be a post-doctorate on their profile (and supports gay marriage?). I have no problem justifying giving every point of this vote to Pro.