Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

How social acceptance of gays might hurt them

Wwskaf
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 6:47:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
***I would like to start by pointing out that I am 100% FOR gay rights. My position on this topic is: If you are against gay marriages, then don't get "gay married" and let everyone else do whatever the heck they please. Therefore, my topic is in no way intended to question their rights.***

A recent research conducted by the Northshore Research Institute in the US found a clear link between the homosexuality trait and certain genomic regions (no particular gene has been found as of yet, but some scientist do think it exists). This suggest that being gay is not a choice but most certainly a genetic trait.

We can also argue that homosexuality has existed for thousands of years within the human specie (as well as other animal species http://www.yalescientific.org...). Yet acceptance of this social behavior is only recent and certainly not widespread.

Decades ago homosexual men and women could not declare their sexual orientation, let alone live it in the public eye for fear of being ridiculed, ostracized or even worse. Therefore, many felt pressured to lead a "normal" life by marrying into the opposite sex and procreating whilst leading a secret life on the side (this still goes on in many parts of our world today).

Being forced into this fake life and procreating also gave the homosexual trait an evolutionary advantage... the trait was being passed on from generation to generation at a much larger scale than it is in societies that have opened up to homosexuality (because they do not need to live a parallel "heterosexual life" and therefore do not procreate as much.

My hypothesis is that on the long run, social acceptance of homosexuality will hurt the trait, since the gene or genomic region will not be passed on leading to a decline in gay individuals. If this is true, the ext generations should see a decline in the gay gene in western, more accepting countries whereas less accepting countries should see no decline in the gene since homosexuals would keep living a double life and procreating as much as the heterosexual population.
Wwskaf
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 12:14:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 10:23:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
There is a difference between genetic and hereditary.

Please explain yourself. What you are trying to say is not clear.

Thank you
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:36:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 6:47:52 PM, Wwskaf wrote:
***I would like to start by pointing out that I am 100% FOR gay rights. My position on this topic is: If you are against gay marriages, then don't get "gay married" and let everyone else do whatever the heck they please. Therefore, my topic is in no way intended to question their rights.***

A recent research conducted by the Northshore Research Institute in the US found a clear link between the homosexuality trait and certain genomic regions (no particular gene has been found as of yet, but some scientist do think it exists). This suggest that being gay is not a choice but most certainly a genetic trait.

We can also argue that homosexuality has existed for thousands of years within the human specie (as well as other animal species http://www.yalescientific.org...). Yet acceptance of this social behavior is only recent and certainly not widespread.

Decades ago homosexual men and women could not declare their sexual orientation, let alone live it in the public eye for fear of being ridiculed, ostracized or even worse. Therefore, many felt pressured to lead a "normal" life by marrying into the opposite sex and procreating whilst leading a secret life on the side (this still goes on in many parts of our world today).

Being forced into this fake life and procreating also gave the homosexual trait an evolutionary advantage... the trait was being passed on from generation to generation at a much larger scale than it is in societies that have opened up to homosexuality (because they do not need to live a parallel "heterosexual life" and therefore do not procreate as much.

My hypothesis is that on the long run, social acceptance of homosexuality will hurt the trait, since the gene or genomic region will not be passed on leading to a decline in gay individuals. If this is true, the ext generations should see a decline in the gay gene in western, more accepting countries whereas less accepting countries should see no decline in the gene since homosexuals would keep living a double life and procreating as much as the heterosexual population.

It's not an entirely genetic thing, so it will always still be around.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Wwskaf
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 12:00:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:36:11 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/11/2015 6:47:52 PM, Wwskaf wrote:

But if we consider the recent studies, it is... my hypothesis only makes sense in the light of evidence from recent studies.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 12:36:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If we assume homosexuality is genetic, then this very argument could be made about any genetic disease, like Parkinson's, and, damnit, they should procreate to keep their numbers up, too. It's just silly.

Wouldn't social acceptance of gays now be more beneficial to gays down the road, once their numbers start diminishing?
My work here is, finally, done.
Wwskaf
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 3:38:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:36:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
If we assume homosexuality is genetic, then this very argument could be made about any genetic disease, like Parkinson's, and, damnit, they should procreate to keep their numbers up, too. It's just silly.

Wouldn't social acceptance of gays now be more beneficial to gays down the road, once their numbers start diminishing?

Yes I agree with you, socially it would be better for them as individuals, but not for the gene itself. It may sound silly to talk about the good of a gene and not the organism as a whole but not in the light of the "gene-centered view of evolution" or the "selfish-gene" theory.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 9:43:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 3:38:14 PM, Wwskaf wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:36:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
If we assume homosexuality is genetic, then this very argument could be made about any genetic disease, like Parkinson's, and, damnit, they should procreate to keep their numbers up, too. It's just silly.

Wouldn't social acceptance of gays now be more beneficial to gays down the road, once their numbers start diminishing?

Yes I agree with you, socially it would be better for them as individuals, but not for the gene itself. It may sound silly to talk about the good of a gene and not the organism as a whole but not in the light of the "gene-centered view of evolution" or the "selfish-gene" theory.

I can still say those theories are silly as well.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wwskaf
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 11:50:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 9:43:40 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:38:14 PM, Wwskaf wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:36:03 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
If we assume homosexuality is genetic, then this very argument could be made about any genetic disease, like Parkinson's, and, damnit, they should procreate to keep their numbers up, too. It's just silly.

Wouldn't social acceptance of gays now be more beneficial to gays down the road, once their numbers start diminishing?

Yes I agree with you, socially it would be better for them as individuals, but not for the gene itself. It may sound silly to talk about the good of a gene and not the organism as a whole but not in the light of the "gene-centered view of evolution" or the "selfish-gene" theory.

I can still say those theories are silly as well.

You are entitled to your opinion. But FYI the selfish gene theory was elaborated by Richard Dawkins a prominent evolutionary biologist. But if you don't even believe in evolution then that's a whole other story, we would be in two different levels of reasoning.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2015 11:23:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It sounds ridiculous to call it genetic. Is my preference for Pabst Blue Ribbon genetic also?
Wwskaf
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 12:34:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/13/2015 11:23:03 AM, Wylted wrote:
It sounds ridiculous to call it genetic. Is my preference for Pabst Blue Ribbon genetic also?

It's based on scientific studies... not opinions.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 3:19:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:00:26 PM, Wwskaf wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:36:11 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/11/2015 6:47:52 PM, Wwskaf wrote:

But if we consider the recent studies, it is... my hypothesis only makes sense in the light of evidence from recent studies.

Studies show that if you use studies that show you will come to the conclusion that studies show that studies show.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 8:58:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 12:14:00 AM, Wwskaf wrote:
At 11/11/2015 10:23:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
There is a difference between genetic and hereditary.

Please explain yourself. What you are trying to say is not clear.

Thank you

If you know what "genetic" means and what "hereditary" means, then it should be clear. If you don't know what those words mean, don't go around talking about "studies" about either of them.

Not everything that is genetic is directly passed down from your parents. That is what hereditary means. Having gay parents does not mean you will inherent a "gay gene." If it is genetic at all (which it is a false dilemma to imply that it is either a choice or genetic), it is not something that is directly passed, but rather a random mutation that is independent.

After all, there are clear studies that show that the more sons a woman has, the more likely the next will be gay. This is because of how her body treats the hormones that run through her blood from the fetus. This right there shows that it is less genetic and more environmental (the womb environment), or at least the womb environment has a significant role.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wwskaf
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 11:46:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 8:58:57 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:14:00 AM, Wwskaf wrote:
At 11/11/2015 10:23:20 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
There is a difference between genetic and hereditary.

Please explain yourself. What you are trying to say is not clear.

Thank you

If you know what "genetic" means and what "hereditary" means, then it should be clear. If you don't know what those words mean, don't go around talking about "studies" about either of them.

Not everything that is genetic is directly passed down from your parents. That is what hereditary means. Having gay parents does not mean you will inherent a "gay gene." If it is genetic at all (which it is a false dilemma to imply that it is either a choice or genetic), it is not something that is directly passed, but rather a random mutation that is independent.

After all, there are clear studies that show that the more sons a woman has, the more likely the next will be gay. This is because of how her body treats the hormones that run through her blood from the fetus. This right there shows that it is less genetic and more environmental (the womb environment), or at least the womb environment has a significant role.

Thank you for explaining these terms ... gosh ! I should've looked them up while I was completing my Master's degree in .... GENETICS.

I wanted to understand your view on it... declaring that genetics is not the same as hereditary wasn't really an argument or an answer.

The vast majority of traits are both hereditary as well as genetic. As of now scientists have figured out the existence of genomic regions linked to homosexuality which suggests a genetic mechanism. This doesn't exclude the hypothesis that it can still be hereditary. The trouble in proving that could in fact come from the possibilty that even though an actual gay gene exists, its penetrance is less than 100%. Heck, there could even be epigenetic factors that influence its expression. All that doesn't exclude it from being hereditary.
Wwskaf
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 11:48:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 3:19:02 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:00:26 PM, Wwskaf wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:36:11 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/11/2015 6:47:52 PM, Wwskaf wrote:

But if we consider the recent studies, it is... my hypothesis only makes sense in the light of evidence from recent studies.

Studies show that if you use studies that show you will come to the conclusion that studies show that studies show.

Wow... then go read the bible ... all your answers are there I guess.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 12:39:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 11:48:00 AM, Wwskaf wrote:
At 11/14/2015 3:19:02 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 11/12/2015 12:00:26 PM, Wwskaf wrote:
At 11/12/2015 3:36:11 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 11/11/2015 6:47:52 PM, Wwskaf wrote:

But if we consider the recent studies, it is... my hypothesis only makes sense in the light of evidence from recent studies.

Studies show that if you use studies that show you will come to the conclusion that studies show that studies show.

Wow... then go read the bible ... all your answers are there I guess.

The Bible, the most accurate and comprehensive literature ever written about humanity and human nature. Words to live by.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
UjjainKumbhMela2016
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 7:32:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 6:47:52 PM, Wwskaf wrote:
***I would like to start by pointing out that I am 100% FOR gay rights. My position on this topic is: If you are against gay marriages, then don't get "gay married" and let everyone else do whatever the heck they please. Therefore, my topic is in no way intended to question their rights.***

A recent research conducted by the Northshore Research Institute in the US found a clear link between the homosexuality trait and certain genomic regions (no particular gene has been found as of yet, but some scientist do think it exists). This suggest that being gay is not a choice but most certainly a genetic trait.

We can also argue that homosexuality has existed for thousands of years within the human specie (as well as other animal species http://www.yalescientific.org...). Yet acceptance of this social behavior is only recent and certainly not widespread.

Decades ago homosexual men and women could not declare their sexual orientation, let alone live it in the public eye for fear of being ridiculed, ostracized or even worse. Therefore, many felt pressured to lead a "normal" life by marrying into the opposite sex and procreating whilst leading a secret life on the side (this still goes on in many parts of our world today).

Being forced into this fake life and procreating also gave the homosexual trait an evolutionary advantage... the trait was being passed on from generation to generation at a much larger scale than it is in societies that have opened up to homosexuality (because they do not need to live a parallel "heterosexual life" and therefore do not procreate as much.

My hypothesis is that on the long run, social acceptance of homosexuality will hurt the trait, since the gene or genomic region will not be passed on leading to a decline in gay individuals. If this is true, the ext generations should see a decline in the gay gene in western, more accepting countries whereas less accepting countries should see no decline in the gene since homosexuals would keep living a double life and procreating as much as the heterosexual population.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 12:24:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Being against gay marriage, isn't as simple as saying don't get gay married. Before Gay marriage was legal, I had nothing to fear. The worst think that would happen, is that I could get drunk and end up married to Britney Spears again. However, after the legalization of gay marriage, and being fully aware of how cute I am, I have to constantly fear, gay people putting a gun to my head and marching me down to force me to get married to them at gun point, and since I'm Carholic, I don't believe in divorce, so I'd end up being stuck in a gay marriage for the rest of my life.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 12:26:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 12:34:48 AM, Wwskaf wrote:
At 11/13/2015 11:23:03 AM, Wylted wrote:
It sounds ridiculous to call it genetic. Is my preference for Pabst Blue Ribbon genetic also?

It's based on scientific studies... not opinions.

No it's not. If there was a study that discovered the Gay gene, it would be all over the news, and Christians would be all up in arms
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2015 12:34:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 12:24:07 PM, Wylted wrote:
Being against gay marriage, isn't as simple as saying don't get gay married. Before Gay marriage was legal, I had nothing to fear. The worst think that would happen, is that I could get drunk and end up married to Britney Spears again. However, after the legalization of gay marriage, and being fully aware of how cute I am, I have to constantly fear, gay people putting a gun to my head and marching me down to force me to get married to them at gun point, and since I'm Carholic, I don't believe in divorce, so I'd end up being stuck in a gay marriage for the rest of my life.

OMG yes. That is so true. Also, gay was defined as "happy" from the beginning. So subconciously, everyone who enters a gay marriage will see it as a marriage that is nothing else but gay (happy). And then when their marriage encounters the most slightest petite little problem, they will go mad and run away into the forest and never return. We could just just throw away the word gay for good, to prevent this, but no. People will always remember that homosexual marriages are associated with the word gay, meaning happy, so this problem will never ever disappear.

All this being said, joining the Westboro Baptist Church will be the very first thing I do tomorrow.