The Instigator
reprezented
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
paigeb
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

There's no such thing as being born GAY!

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...
paigeb
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,645 times Debate No: 44729
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

reprezented

Pro

People claim they are born gay I think it's absolute BS! If that's the case I can be a pedophile and be sexually attracted to children and use the same cop-out that I was born this way and have a genetic disposition to be attracted to minors!
paigeb

Con

I will accept this debate. I will argue people are born gay. I look forward to viewing your points in the next round and debating with you. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
reprezented

Pro

Being GAY is a personal choice it is not genetic nor is it hereditary. That is the dumbest explanation I've ever heard in my entire life. To say it is genetic or hereditary would mean that we would have to carry that mutation in our DNA. If this were even remotely true then why is it that no other species in all existence carries this gene and mate with other animals of the same sex? There are not even any GAY primates which are scientifically proven to share 99% of human DNA. Every genetic mutation, anomaly, and variation of the sort has been identified to a certain extent thanks to the advancement in modern medicine and technology from AIDS/HIV, to Cancer, Crohn's Disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Hemophilia, Sickle Cell Anemia, Retinitis Pigmentosa, Parkinson's disease, and Autism. The list of genetic disorders is so long that we would be here all night naming every single genome that has been identified in the human body. Where is this so-called Gay-gene? Why is it in hiding and has yet to be discovered even by world renowned scientists? We've even discovered Holy manuscripts from thousands of years ago in conjunction with ancient artifacts that substantiate the events that took place in the Bible. We've discovered fossils of dinosaurs that existed millions of years go. We've discovered RDIF technology, a galaxy and an entire solar system with several moons and planets yet there's no discovery of this so-called Gay-gene? If being GAY is hereditary then why in over 99% of all cases of family members of homosexuals which include but are not limited to great uncles and aunts, Great Great Grand parents and ancestors of the past have no history what-so-ever of being GAY? If it does not run in the family it cannot be genetic nor hereditary! Lastly if people were born Gay then why do some of them become straight? If I was born with a genetic disposition such as Cancer I can't wake up one day and decide I'm cancer-free!! If my Autism was hereditary then tomorrow I can't just up and decide that I don't want to be Autistic anymore yet GAY people decide to up and go STRAIGHT all the time and never look back!! These people weren't forced neither were they living a lie to please others... but literally decided of their own free will that they wanted to be STRAIGHT! When a person suffering with an "ACTUAL" hereditary/genetic mutation that they were born with such as Cystic Fibrosis can wake up one day and decide that they want to be healed and pain free at any given moment like GAY people decide at any given time that they want to be straight then I'm 100% positive that society will have less sympathy for the Fibrosis community but unlike being GAY... Cystic Fibrosis among other disorders is a "REAL" genetic condition that people are born with everyday and unlike GAYS they don't go around throwing parades, participating in sexual and pervasive acts, propagating themselves by wearing rainbow colors, indulging in wild GAY parties, nor will you see them looking like freaks of nature out in public because we all know that people who are BORN with REAL GENETIC CONDITIONS are to busy fighting for there lives in hospitals and medical facilities!
paigeb

Con

Thank you for your quick response.

First, I would like any websites or evidence you used to make your arguments. I am assuming you forgot to list them, but you use evidence like "There are not even any GAY primates which are scientifically proven to share 99% of human DNA.", but without any sources. I could say all your argumentation is false, since there is not even one source provided to prove any of your points of argumentation true. However, I will not simply say your evidence is false at this point, since I do want debate to occur.

"To say it is genetic or hereditary would mean that we would have to carry that mutation in our DNA. If this were even remotely true then why is it that no other species in all existence carries this gene and mate with other animals of the same sex?"

For this first point, I would like to bring up the the hereditary issue. I would like to first point out the question of this debate is not simply of it being all genetic or all hereditary. However, according to the study in The Quarterly Review of Biology, sex-specific epi-marks, which usually do not pass between generations that can lead to homosexuality when they are not abolished and are transferred from the opposite sex parent. Studies in the past have proven that homosexuality runs in families, leading most researchers to surmise genetics are the prominent reason of the preference of a persons sexual orientation. [1] There is not a specific gene of being gay, and there does not have to be in order to prove people are born gay. The epi- mark is the reason why someone is born a homosexual.

"If being GAY is hereditary then why in over 99% of all cases of family members of homosexuals which include but are not limited to great uncles and aunts, Great Great Grand parents and ancestors of the past have no history what-so-ever of being GAY?"

I would like to answer this question for you. People do not have the history of being gay because it was a new topic, and was simply looked down upon. There was a large disapproval rating. Simply looking at a graph, just looking at gay marriage alone. only about 27% of people approved gay marriage. In 2013, that has significantly rose to over 60%. No families or ancestors were gay because it was not common.[2]

Secondly, I would like to cover the comment that no other species carries a gene and mates with other animals of the same sex. However, this is untrue. Behavior of animals toward the same- sex is very common. Taking into account this is not simply a genetic or hereditary debate, animals do have same- sex behaviors. "It's clear that same-sex sexual behavior extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature: for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies," said Nathan Bailey, a researcher at the University of California. [3] In fact, bonobos, who share 98.7% of their DNA with humans have same sex behavior. [4] It is found that nearly 60% of sexual activity is found to be between two or more females; this is considered to be the highest frequency of homosexuality among species where homosexual behavior is known.[5] Since it is a natural behavior, even to close related species, homosexuality is natural and you can be born with it through hereditary and also epi- mark reasons.

"When a person suffering with an "ACTUAL" hereditary/genetic mutation that they were born with such as Cystic Fibrosis can wake up one day and decide that they want to be healed and pain free at any given moment like GAY people decide at any given time that they want to be straight..."

I find that this argument is deeply flawed, as a disease of the body can not correlate with sexual preference or feelings. I do agree diseases cannot be cured because a person wants to. However, people can make choices. There is nothing wrong with making choices. Even with the evidence today, there is no way to prove someone went from being gay to straight, and was scientifically proven to be a homosexual. You cannot prove that someone decides to be gay and go straight on their own free will. There is no evidence, nor sources that will prove that will be causation. It can or never will be. I cannot prove that someone was actually gay and went willingly straight, nor you can prove that someone was gay and was actually straight. It's impossible, so I will disregard the argument you made.

"...GAYS they don't go around throwing parades, participating in sexual and pervasive acts, propagating themselves by wearing rainbow colors, indulging in wild GAY parties, nor will you see them looking like freaks of nature out in public because we all know that people who are BORN with REAL GENETIC CONDITIONS are to busy fighting for there lives in hospitals and medical facilities!"

People with diseases promote foundations and organizations to cure diseases. Breast cancer has the symbol of a pink ribbon. However, your personal views are being a homosexual is a condition that needs to be fixed, which is not true. My evidence concludes it is because of the epi- marks and is proven through close related species to humans. Just because it is genetic does not mean it is a terrible condition. I am honestly confused about this statement, as it is degrading towards people who are gay, and I find it extremely disrespectful for putting a stereotype on people who are homosexual to have wild parties and that they are freaks of nature. In fact, you are assuming straight people do not have wild parties and are normal. Truthfully, I find your arguments are on personal opinions, and terrible stereotypes. I would like actual evidence and sources.

I have friends who do not believe in gay relationships. I am perfectly content with it. However, you are not open minded, and are not being respectful whatsoever. I would like you to be respectful with your language, and not labeling gays as a terrible thing.

Thank you. I am eagerly waiting your reply.

1) http://www.usnews.com...
2)http://www.motherjones.com...
3) http://www.livescience.com...
4) http://news.sciencemag.org...
5) http://www.ansci.wisc.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
reprezented

Pro

You claim "epi-marks" are the reason people are born homosexual but these "epi-marks" only control how genes are expressed which in retrospect makes Homosexuality in a sense a genetic issue. If you do your research it says that scientists "THINK" they may have figured out what makes "SOME" people GAY not all. SO what that means is that scientists are clueless, cannot prove definitively that these "epi-marks" are without a doubt the exact accurate cause of same sex orientation; in other words they still don't know. At best the "epi-mark" justification is none other than an educated guess. Also the report in the Chicago-sun Times excludes "ALL" GAY people and uses the term "SOME" which leaves out a number of exempt Homosexuals with no scientific, genetic or biological explanation for being GAY. This causes a problem because the article in the Chicago-sun Times does not have an explanation for the other homosexuals not related to the "epi-mark" conjecture so I guess these Gays fall through the cracks of confusion.

Second you specifically stated verbatim that "No families or ancestors were GAY because IT WAS NOT COMMON." What you said proved a major point in conjunction with behavioral science. The "HERD INSTINCT" or "HERD MORALITY" as defined in Wikipedia describes how "individuals in a group can act together without planned direction." Modern psychological and economic research has identified herd behavior in humans to explain the phenomena of large numbers of people acting in the same way at the same time. Being GAY is none other than an example of "HERD BEHAVIOR" it is not genetic, biological, psychological or hereditary. As society shifted from old-school values and conservative traditions we entered into an era where the world and the lifestyles of people evolved and drastically changed as they always do. You also stated that homosexuality was looked down upon but the problem with that statement is that it neither proves or disproves whether family members or ancestors were or were not GAY... All that proves is that it was less liked by society so that is not even worth commenting on.

Third you tried to make a point that animals have displayed same-sex characteristics among one another but you did not specifically define these characteristics so that statement is moderate and ambiguous. Also these "Same-sex" behaviors expressed in animals by researchers, zoologists, and scientists alike have determined it to be demonstrations of platonic courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting; also the motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied which leads us back to the merry-go-round of constant guessing and justification but no definitive proof of anything.

Fourth you incriminated yourself and possibly damaged any legitimacy for your own debate by several remarks that you made. First you said verbatim that "there is no way to prove someone went from being gay to straight, and was scientifically proven to be a homosexual. You cannot prove that someone decides to be gay and go straight on their own free will." If you cannot prove that someone is specifically homosexual then neither can you prove what makes a person homosexual. Also as you put it "nor can you prove that someone was gay and was actually straight," so if you can't prove a person is actually STRAIGHT how then can you prove a person is actually GAY????

Lastly I admit that heterosexual people party, have fun, dress up and enjoy life just like GAY people do but Homosexuality is a movement and it's all about PRIDE! Homosexuality is all about living life a certain way while Heterosexuality needs no Parades, sympathy, community or organizational support, representation or international acknowledgment. Homosexuality has become a side-show and a major trend in the last couple decades. There are entire cities, major parts of countries, large communities and heavily populated areas where homosexuals frequent and abide regularly and because of this it is impossible to say that people are born GAY. There are sooooo many GAY people that it would have to mean that every single person in the entire world would literally have to carry this inborn trait. To say people are born GAY you would have to affirm sympathy for pedophiles and grant them the same clemency and extenuation not limited to but including scam artists, thieves, rapists, bigots and just about any other human being that makes a personal choice but wants the world to believe that they were born this way and maybe when Hell freezes over we will all find "epi-marks" to justify these things too and then we can let every person on earth out of prison and the world will be a much happier place!!!
paigeb

Con

Also the report in the Chicago-sun Times excludes "ALL" GAY people and uses the term "SOME" which leaves out a number of exempt Homosexuals with no scientific, genetic or biological explanation for being GAY."

I have another study to prove my point, as even though the specific page does use generalizing words, others do not. A review of current research shows that there is no evidence supporting a social cause for homosexuality [1]. There are multiple studies, both with animals and humans, demonstrating the causative relationship with the pre-natal testosterone during a critical stage in "defeminization". [2] Since sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which can result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation. There is more evidence that the orientation of a person occurs before they are born than afterwards.

In addition, another study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable. Just like the analogy that is used in my evidence, it is simply like being left handed. It was viewed as being possessed by evil. Now, scientifically, we know that is not true. The developing male fetus receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation. [3] In 1972, a study was done by Dr. Ward, who found that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain. [4] The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it cannot change. These are all studies and examples that sexual orientation is, in fact, proved to be ingrained within a person before birth.

"Second you specifically stated verbatim that "No families or ancestors were GAY because IT WAS NOT COMMON."

I would like to point out this was taken out of context, as I did conclude to say that it was not common for people to express if they were homosexuals because it was inherently looked down upon. I did not intend for my point to be taken out of context and that it was uncommon in the sense that people were not. I intended for that to mean it was uncommon because of society, it was not something someone willingly came out to say.

"Being GAY is none other than an example of "HERD BEHAVIOR" it is not genetic, biological, psychological or hereditary. As society shifted from old-school values and conservative traditions we entered into an era where the world and the lifestyles of people evolved and drastically changed as they always do. You also stated that homosexuality was looked down upon but the problem with that statement is that it neither proves or disproves whether family members or ancestors were or were not GAY... All that proves is that it was less liked by society so that is not even worth commenting on."

My multiple sources of evidence off of my first point proves that sexual orientation is not because of herd behavior. It is because of the brains development. My statement about how homosexuality was looked down upon proves that even if people were gay, there would be no way to know. Even if we did disregard that comment, the evidence proves people are born gay. If we do or do not know if ancestors were gay, it really does not matter. Looking at current evidence and data, it is hereditary and biologically, and would negate your statements otherwise. This is definite proof.

"Also these "Same-sex" behaviors expressed in animals by researchers, zoologists, and scientists alike have determined it to be demonstrations of platonic courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting; also the motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied which leads us back to the merry-go-round of constant guessing and justification but no definitive proof of anything."

I need sources. I cannot assume your sources are reliable. I need actual evidence and sources. However, all of the same- sex behaviors you mention and what they demonstrate fully prove my point. It is ingrained in their minds. Also, my opponent has contradicted a previous argument of saying most instead of all, when my opponent did it themselves, by saying "...most species have not been fully studied..." Without a quantified amount, I cannot trust this statement as being reliable. Looking back at the previous round, a close species to humans, bonobos, have been studied and have same- sex behaviors. This is not guessing. This is solid and proved evidence.

"First you said verbatim that "there is no way to prove someone went from being gay to straight, and was scientifically proved to be a homosexual. You cannot prove that someone decides to be gay and go straight on their own free will." If you cannot prove that someone is specifically homosexual then neither can you prove what makes a person homosexual."

Again, this was taken out of context and misunderstood. I was talking about a previous argument made, about people changing their sexual preference. Relating sexual preference to what I said, it makes sense that no one would be able to prove if someone was actually meant to be gay or meant to be straight by the methods we have today. It does not contradict my point at all. If we had that evidence today, this would not even be a debate today. However, on newly watched studies with children I provided earlier, that is how we can prove if someone is gay. Someone cannot simply look at someone and assume if the person is homosexual. It takes a long- term study. This is the point I was trying to make.

Lastly, homosexuality is about pride because homosexuality is a topic not all people are comfortable with. Even with contradicting religions and churches going against gays, it is about pride to stop gay stereotypes. Heterosexuality does not need parades or support because it is a relationship that is common.

"There are sooooo many GAY people that it would have to mean that every single person in the entire world would literally have to carry this inborn trait. To say people are born GAY you would have to affirm sympathy for pedophiles and grant them the same clemency and extenuation not limited to but including scam artists, thieves, rapists, bigots..."

I am very confused about this statement. First, again, my opponent is contradicting themselves again. My opponents argumentation was I am using words like most, but my opponent is saying statements that are using generalizing terms. Since you state there are so many gay people, every person would need to carry this trait. I would like evidence for this statement. Right now, my opponent cannot prove this, as my opponent gave no quantified amount of how many homosexual people are in the world. In regards to your second statement, I am shocked. It is unreasonable to compare homosexuals being born the way they are to relate pedophiles and scam artists to the same cause. There is no way you can justify this. Actually, you could never justify that statement even if you tried. You are going into a different issue. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about sexual orientation, and not actual choices and poor decisions people choose to make, like scamming or being a rapist. I have tried to be as civilized and respectful as I can possibly be. I expect the same respect towards the gay community in return.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[3] http://www.rrcstaff.com...

[4] http://www.viewzone.com...
Debate Round No. 3
reprezented

Pro

First and for most before I start this argument I will state that I am NOT going to cite sources or back up material for a lot of information that I use for several different reasons; either it is common knowledge, common sense, or the information in my argument can easily be verified and looked up at any time on any search engine. It is not rocket science but any information I use can be searched and confirmed on your own time.

First I will start by saying that there is no definitive proof that lower levels of testosterone effect sexual orientation. You never mentioned the female hormone estrogen which some females are born with lower levels of but are not Lesbians. You stated verbatim that "The developing male fetus receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation," yet there are lots of heterosexual men born with lower levels of testosterone so if what you are saying is accurate then these men should be GAY. On the same note as stated in Wikipedia testosterone is a steroid hormone not a sexual orientation hormone and it plays a key role in males in the development of their reproductive organs as well as promoting secondary sexual characteristics such as increased muscle, bone mass, and the growth of body hair. Also falling in love is scientifically proven to lower levels of testosterone in males and increase testosterone in females which means that testosterone levels have intermittent highs and lows throughout the lifetime of a human being. It is our natural affinity to constantly go through hormonal changes all throughout life so why would something that is permanently innate in human development "SUDDENLY" have an affect on sexual orientation even if it happens prematurely during birth? Also on Wikipedia nowhere does it say TESTOSTERONE has "ANYTHING" to do with gender attraction nor in Human Biology which I took in college. The course covers over several chapters of detailed research and scientific information on different hormones, their effects on the body, and what they mean to our anatomy but there is not ONE reputable source that definitively confirms and proves without a doubt your claims about Testosterone having anything to do with sexual orientation; it is all speculation and not fact. Then you said, "The developing MALE FETUS receives too little testosterone, which causes the sexual orientation." So I guess only males are born GAY??? And females get to choose... yes I see your logic!

Second I love hypocrisy in debate it's great because I love how you said "In addition, another study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable," then you said "Just like the analogy that is used in my evidence, it is simply like being left handed." How is this statement any different from my pedophilia, scam artist, thief analogy? But I will get back to that later in the argument now is not the time lol! I want to address the fact that you said a study proves that sexual orientation is uncontrollable... how so? I would have loved to know which study this was and how they were able to prove something like that and what was the deciding factor that proved it, but as expected you couldn't offer anything more than just an enigmatic statement. You also stated verbatim that...

"A study was done by Dr. Ward, who found that androstendione in male pregnancies would prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain. The brain makes its gender commitment very early in development and, once committed to either male or female, it cannot change. These are all studies and examples that sexual orientation is, in fact, proved to be ingrained within a person before birth."

"Androstenedione" as it is correctly spelled is the common precursor of male and female sex hormones as also stated in Wikipedia. It does lots of things in the human body but nowhere does it say that it has ANYTHING to do with sexual orientation or gender commitment however there is speculation that it may have estrogenic side-effects but that has yet to be proven because no one has ever had a high enough intake. Second Androstenedione was manufactured as a dietary supplement, often called andro for short. Andro was legal and able to be purchased over the counter, and, as a consequence, it was in common use in Major League Baseball throughout the 1990s by record-breaking sluggers like Mark McGwire. The International Olympic Committee in 1997 banned Androstenedione and placed it under the category of "androgenic-anabolic steroids" and for this reason it is banned by MLB, the NFL, USOC, NCA, and by the NBA. If Androstenedione has the ability to "prevent the hypothalamus to develop into a healthy male brain," as you've stated then why have none of these athletes who habitually have taken this supplement have displayed any homosexual-like behavior or characteristics in any way what-so-ever?? Odd don't you think? And you use this estranged person called Dr. Ward? I looked him up and couldn't find a Dr. Ward only someone named Dr. Ward F. Odenwald if that's who you're talking about who did his research on HOMOSEXUALITY in 1995!! I was 9 years old!! Which was almost 20 years ago! So his research is null-and-void and means nothing because everything he "THOUGHT" he proved has yet to come to fruition! His so-called GAY discovery Androstenedione which was banned 2 years AFTER his research has not had the effect that he claimed it has on MALES and almost 20 years later and counting no athlete who took Androstenedione on a regular basis as a supplement has yet to experience changes in their sexual orientation. You also stated that sexual orientation was in-grained at birth yet you told me in the last argument that you cannot prove that someone who was GAY actually turned straight... that statement is a contradiction yet people do it all the time and YOU KNOW IT! In-grained my AZZ! I've had friends who were GAY and turned STRAIGHT and when asked about their decision to become heterosexual they said at one point they were attracted to the same gender and now they're JUST NOT!! I'm a female and I was attracted to other females for almost 6 years and now I'M NOT!! I'm attracted to guys and have been dating them ever since! People change their sexual preference all the time not to mention I CHOSE my sex partners thus choosing my orientation and was not in-grained with it. It is a personal choice just as simple as one day wanting Cheese cake and the next day Apple Pie!

Lastly I'm going to skip arguing a lot of the stuff you said because it's pointless and I've already won so I will conclude this round by replying with a rebuttal to a statement that you made when you said...

"It is unreasonable to compare homosexuals being born the way they are to relate pedophiles and scam artists to the same cause. There is no way you can justify this. You are going into a different issue. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about sexual orientation, and not ACTUAL CHOICES and POOR DECISIONS people choose to make, like scamming or being a rapist."

My response to that is no it is not unreasonable because the basis of my argument is that there is no such thing as people being born gay... it is a personal choice! I am not going into a different direction by naming people that live these other various lifestyles because this has everything to do with my argument because being GAY is ALSO a lifestyle and it is a lifestyle choice. And you consider people who live as pedophiles, scam artists, rapists and so forth to be "ACTUAL CHOICES" and "POOR DECISIONS" yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not? LMAO Get out of here! There are STRAIGHT men who even do this for the money and solely for the money so get the heck out of here but in your biased logic it can't be an ACTUAL CHOICE or male prostitution it's an "epi-mark" no wait it's too much "Androstenedione" at birth, no no it's "lack of Testosterone"!! Wait it's in the "BRAIN"!! HAHA Which one is it?? Pick one! LMAO!!
paigeb

Con

Thank you for your timely reply.
"I am NOT going to cite sources or back up material for a lot of information that I use for several different reasons; either it is common knowledge, common sense, or the information in my argument can easily be verified and looked up at any time on any search engine."

No comment. The voters can judge this statement.

"...yet there are lots of heterosexual men born with lower levels of testosterone so if what you are saying is accurate then these men should be GAY."

The word 'lots' is a generalized word to make an argument look stronger. However, with no statistics or sources, I can not prove this fact true. It is your job as a debater to cite and make claims backed up with sources. It is like saying "there are a lot of people in the world. Search it up on a search engine." It is your job as a debater to provide these details. I have to analyze and view this comment as unproven.

" Also falling in love is scientifically proven to lower levels of testosterone in males and increase testosterone in females which means that testosterone levels have intermittent highs and lows throughout the lifetime of a human being."

This is true. However, my study has proven this at birth, as these would not affect the outcome of the study I provided.

"First I will start by saying that there is no definitive proof that lower levels of testosterone effect sexual orientation. You never mentioned the female hormone estrogen which some females are born with lower levels of but are not Lesbians."

Men and women both have testosterone, so the levels of estrogen is unnecessary into determining the sexual orientation of a person. Many sexually differentiated characteristics are organized by sex steroids, which I agree with you, but it also affects sexual orientation. Multiple sexually differentiated behavioral, and physiological traits are significantly different in homosexual and heterosexual people. Some of these traits are known to be organized by prenatal steroids, including testosterone. These differences suggest that homosexual subjects were exposed to endocrine conditions during development.[1] Testosterone is a steroid hormone responsible for sexual orientation.

In addition, my opponent misread my argument, as I said when the male fetus receives too little testosterone, it causes the sexual orientation. The study I provided was only studied over males. I did not imply females get to choose. It was a stretched assumption made by my opponent.

"...why have none of these athletes who habitually have taken this supplement have displayed any homosexual-like behavior or characteristics in any way what-so-ever?? Odd don't you think? And you use this estranged person called Dr. Ward? I looked him up and couldn't find a Dr. Ward only someone named Dr. Ward F. Odenwald if that's who you're talking about who did his research on HOMOSEXUALITY in 1995!! I was 9 years old!!"

They have not displayed homosexual behaviors because it effects the early development of babies, and not adults. The study you did looked up was the one I did provide in my sources. It is important to remember that I provided over 5 studies, this being the most outdated one. All of them proved that sexual orientation was decided at birth. Being critical over one study, that is still reliable and even helps prove the more recent studies, is unnecessary. Providing one outdated study is better than displaying none, like my opponent. (Unless you count Wikipedia, none cited, so the information cannot be trusted nor verified.)

"I'm a female and I was attracted to other females for almost 6 years and now I'M NOT!! I'm attracted to guys and have been dating them ever since!"

Yes, as I stated before, people can change their viewpoints. As we argued earlier on, there is no test we can give a person after birth to determine if they are straight or homosexual. Just because of your personal experience, (needless to say only one experience), should not be the determining factor of the majority of studies. Sure, people can change their views. However, even by the confusion, (which could be from external factors), there is still the underlying factors that have been ingrained in the memory.

"And you consider people who live as pedophiles, scam artists, rapists and so forth to be "ACTUAL CHOICES" and "POOR DECISIONS" yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not? LMAO Get out of here! There are STRAIGHT men who even do this for the money and solely for the money so get the heck out of here but in your biased logic it can't be an ACTUAL CHOICE or male prostitution it's an "epi-mark" no wait it's too much "Androstenedione" at birth, no no it's "lack of Testosterone"!! Wait it's in the "BRAIN"!! HAHA Which one is it?? Pick one! LMAO!!"

As you can tell by my opponents choice of language, like "lmao", my opponent does not take this as a serious debate. Saying it is a poor choice for a guy being gay is judging.
"... yet being a guy and WANTING to suck another guy's wiener is not?"

Another person could judge for a girl wanting to do that to a guy. There is no difference, as this does not even matter into the deciding factor of if someone is born gay. My opponent only supplied her personal opinion, displayed a multitude of times throughout this debate, with rude language, a closed mind, and no sources. The answer is clear, as I supplied multiple studies (that non my opponent actually refuted with sources), and thorough explanations. My opponent simply acted as if the assumptions made on my opponents part were correct, as with no sources or statistics, cannot be proven.

My sources are credible and reliable.
My opponent used one personal experience.

Vote pro.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by hppavilion 3 years ago
hppavilion
Here's the one obvious question: If people could choose their orientation, why would they choose to be gay? Because of people like you, who go around screaming that "all the [gays] are going to hell!" (no offence to homosexuals, that was just for effect,) they would probably choose NOT to be gay. If they could choose not to, why do homosexual teens often commit suicide? Suicide is generally a last-resort choice among people, so why would someone choose to kill themselves rather than just choose not to be gay if it were possible? Why are people of so many different religions gay, even though they are taught CONSTANTLY through their whole life that (as I said before) "All the [gays] are going to hell!"? And if someone was attracted to the same sex in the same way you are attracted to the opposite, why would they decide to stop that and be attracted to the same sex? Finally, do you REALLY think you could decide to be gay? I mean, don't you kind of cringe at the thought of sex with a man (or woman, if you are one?)
Posted by ESocialBookworm 3 years ago
ESocialBookworm
Being gay also has to do with society's expectations. As a result of the actions you take, even as a young child, if society dubs you with a label, only very strong minded people don't follow through with it.
Posted by reprezented 3 years ago
reprezented
To black_squirrel you say I'm confusing "Born With" with "Genetic"? If you're so-called "BORN-WITH" something is it not either genetic or hereditary? But seeing how smart you are I guess for GAY people it's all a dream right? Would that be more politically correct? I mean please help me explain! And to markuswashere why do I have to be angry? Maybe I'm annoyed that people who make "personal choices" to be in same sex relationships, instead want to say "I was born this way... It's not my fault!" It's insulting to people with actual conditions, disorders, and defects who in all reality were "BORN WITH" these issues. To kbub I never directly said being GAY was a mutation such as to target homosexuality in a derogatory manner. I'm making a point that with all genetic or hereditary dispositions they are "mutations" in DNA. And to EmilyH as far as "It has been proven that changes in the brain make a person Homosexual" what changes?? Please explain to me because I'm confused with your rationale so help me understand! If that's true then why is it that 100% of STRAIGHT people who suffer head-related trauma or injury NEVER wake up and become homosexual? There are over a hundred different types of brain injuries and not ONE single trauma has ever FLIPPED THE GAY SWITCH. And for all you people in the comment section who say "I'm wrong" PROVE IT! I'd expect something legitimate to back up your claims such as facts, details, and data but you have nothing other than I'm just wrong lol. You can't debate logic with opinion!
Posted by DragonMan 3 years ago
DragonMan
I happen to agree with the Pro argument at this point, being born gay would indicate two sources of information in regards to its development, the mother and the father. Once born environment factors into it as well but during reproduction only the mother and father make any changes and that is through either the DNA or what the mother subjects herself to.
And in response to EmilyH's post I would like to know who made this discovery and how they discovered it as I know several families, both friend and family who have younger and older brothers who are happily heterosexual
Posted by black_squirrel 3 years ago
black_squirrel
PRO confuses "born with" with "genetic".
Posted by black_squirrel 3 years ago
black_squirrel
PRO confuses "born with" with "genetic".
Posted by ajwf95 3 years ago
ajwf95
Reprezented - Even if you do win this debate, you are still, in fact, wrong.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
Interesting DEBATE!!!
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Also, being gay is not a "mutation," just like being straight or a male or a female is not a "mutation."

Continuing to associate loving same-sex couples with pedophiles is derogatory and deceptive.
Posted by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
Gosh Pro you are so wrong. It would be quite convenient if it were a choice, but unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

Oh, and if I may, adding paragraphs might make your argument easier to read.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
reprezentedpaigebTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. OK, here's how this goes. First, Pro, you MUST SOURCE YOUR ARGUMENTS. Unwarranted, uncited assertions of the sorts you're making are not "common knowledge, common sense," nor should you expect us to find information for you to back up your points. We're voters, and just reading through this debate should be sufficient for us to make our decisions. Second, Pro, when you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to sources, you have little ground to assault Con's. Third, Pro, focus on making logical arguments rather than attacking homosexuals with your argumentation. You often got off track and made attacks that had nothing to do with your argument. Fourth, Pro, stop with the run-on sentences, the random capitalized words, and the walls of text. It was seriously painful to read your posts. Fifth, Con, well done. Sticking it out through this debate with such solid argumentation, you deserve every point you can get.