The Instigator
Benzyl
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Kynikos
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Are people 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...
Benzyl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,180 times Debate No: 102661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Benzyl

Con

Hello, first debater here.
In this debate, if anyone accepts, I will be arguing that people are not born gay. Keping it simple, the rounds will go as follows:
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: Refutations and argument extensions
Round 4: Closing arguments and refutations
Best of luck and thank you to challenger
Kynikos

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Benzyl

Con

Thank you and best of luck to challenger.
Pro argues and accepts that those who are homosexual are born with, or have inherited, their sexuality.

Inherit: derive (a quality, characteristic, or predisposition) genetically from one's parents or ancestors.

Let's start with the idea that genetics affect a person's sexuality. The "born this way" concept really has nothing to back it up. Sexuality is like personality: no genetics and coding can change how someone acts, only the environment that a person was raised in can change that (with the exception of mental disorders). Inherited traits like blue eyes and hair color are determined by genes. But is homosexuality inherited and determined by genes?. There is a slim to none amount of evidence whatsoever to support this (pro"s) statement. In fact, the Gay Lobby during the seventies simply made it up. However, the overwhelming evidence suggests that people are not born gay, or straight, for that matter. The David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California finds that homosexuality may be triggered by environmental factors after birth. The big question in this debate is: are people born with the tendency to be attracted to their own sex? Or is it simply a factor of a person's surrounding environment? Based on the evidence that the David Geffen school found and the still mysteriously unlocated "gay gene" in the human DNA suggests that people are likely to be impacted more by their environments than they are to be affected by genes that are not proven to exist. Scholars and researchers at Johns Hopkins University released a report that argues that homosexuals are born with the sexual identity they currently identify with.

pjmedia.com/trending/2016/08/23/johns-hopkins-research-no-evidence-people-are-born-gay-or-transgender/
newsmax.com/Newsfront/lgbt-gay-transgender-study/2016/08/22/id/744644/Dictionary.com
Kynikos

Pro

Starting with Con's first point: that no gay gene exists.

First off, this point is misleading because it ignores the available research. No particular gene has been found to consistently "cause" homosexuality in people who carry it. However, some genes have been found to have indirect effects on the development of homosexuality [4] - which is what Con's David Gaffen source actually shows. Beyond that, many studies do show a more direct relationship between certain genes and homosexuality in males, in addition to a realistic mechanism that would explain such [1]. For that reason alone voters can discount his argument.

Con's John Hopkins researchers know this:

"So the question 'Are gay people born that way?' requires clarification. There is virtually no evidence that anyone, gay or straight, is 'born that way' if it means that their sexual orientation was genetically determined," [2]

Secondly, even if this point were correct, it would add little weight to Con's stance. People are born with traits that are not genetic. In developmental research, factors which adversely affect in-vitro development are known as teratogens. That something of the sort may be at play with respect to homosexuality is not speculation. Various studies show pre-natal effects such as birth order are associated with one's likelihood to be homosexual [3]. If Con is correct, this correlation should be explainable by some post-birth environmental factor. There's no conceivable way for that to be the case, so Con's argument is likely wrong.

A plurality of evidence shows pre-birth factors affect the development of homosexual. Con's explanation cannot reasonably account for such. Vote Pro.

--
Sources:

1] http://journals.plos.org...
2] https://pjmedia.com...
3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
4] https://www.ashg.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Benzyl

Con

Since Pro has made no points and only attempted refutations, I will extend my argument with the "smoking gun" which tells that no one is truly born gay.
The Identical Twin Experiment
Identical Twins: Two separate people formed from the same egg, but with identical DNA
Hypothesis: if people are truly born gay, and have inherited this, then two people with the same DNA will both be gay.
Data: If an identical twin is homosexual, the chance of his/her identical twin also being gay is only 11% for males and 14% for females
What does this mean?
The data that PhD. Neil Whitehead collected proves that homosexuality is not in any way, impacted by genetics and factors in the womb because if two people have the same genetics, fetal conditions, and DNA, then they would have the same inherited traits. In addition, identical twins have the same prenatal conditions, so as Pro stated previously how there are pre birth factors that can affect sexuality, why do both twins not have the same sexual orientation? Simply because these factors that Pro mentions to supposedly impact sexuality in reality have no real affect on sexual orientation.
Going back to Pros overall argument that people are BORN as one certain sexuality: gay, straight, etc. there are a plethora of examples of how people are originally straight, but later see that their sexuality changes and they begin to feel homosexual. No one is born with a set sexuality, it changes as the environment does. Some environmental factors that impact sexuality include:
Early exposure to porn
A history of Teasing
Low self esteem and body image
Inability to play sports
Parental issues
Abuse

Thank you to Pro for an interesting debate :)
Vote Con

Sources
http://www.hollanddavis.com...
https://socialinqueery.com...
http://abcnews.go.com...
http://www.nooneisborngay.com...
Bradley, Affect Regulation and the Development of Psychopathology,
Kynikos

Pro

To start off, Con is incorrect that I have made no points. In fact, my prior round concluded with a summary of such: That Con's thesis (i.e., no people are born gay) cannot adequately explain the plethora of pre-natal factors associated with homosexuality. Con did not even attempt to explain these away, so I will extend the argument.

Additionally, since some of these factors are not genetic, whether the gay gene exists or not is irrelevant. It also makes Con's twin studies irrelevant, as many by necessity cannot apply to twins -- the effects of birth order being the most salient example.

Secondly, his argument that homosexuality is not "in any way impacted by genetics" ignores the discovery of the David Gaffen source he cited in Round 2, whose argument I extended. Additionally, epigenetic effects may be different for two different genomes - that is, different people/genomes may have different reactions to the same environment. This is known as a reaction norm, and it's another reason his twin studies are useless (because twins have the same genomes, if exposed to the same environment, they would have the same reaction norms).

And finally, that some people supposedly "change" does not detract from the fact that people can be and frequently are born gay. It also does not explain why many people prove resistant to conversion "therapy," or the long list of pre-natal factors associated with homosexuality.

Thanks to Con for starting the debate. Vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kynikos 1 year ago
Kynikos
merci
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
Mharman
Pro has the best profile picture I have seen in a long time.
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
Don't know why it posted three times...
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
No one is looking for a "gay gene" anymore and the idea of a gene making you into this "other" is ridiculous. The sex organs you are born with develop independently from the brain wiring that determines your sexual preferences. Most of the time, they line up to form the standard heterosexual person, sometimes they don't. In fact, being "gay" is more of a highly varied spectrum that one could chart as a percentage. There likely isn't many people who are 100% on one side or the other, perhaps 98% at most. It would really help if you separated "being gay" from "acting gay" as well. A woman who kisses many of her female friends and perhaps even sleeps with some isn't necessarily gay, even if she is preforming a homosexual act. Yes, your environment can foster a relaxed attitude towards homosexual activities to the point that you may even engage in them from time to time, but that doesn't actually say anything about that person's true inner sexual preferences. Which, yes, are determined during your fetal development.
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
No one is looking for a "gay gene" anymore and the idea of a gene making you into this "other" is ridiculous. The sex organs you are born with develop independently from the brain wiring that determines your sexual preferences. Most of the time, they line up to form the standard heterosexual person, sometimes they don't. In fact, being "gay" is more of a highly varied spectrum that one could chart as a percentage. There likely isn't many people who are 100% on one side or the other, perhaps 98% at most. It would really help if you separated "being gay" from "acting gay" as well. A woman who kisses many of her female friends and perhaps even sleeps with some isn't necessarily gay, even if she is preforming a homosexual act. Yes, your environment can foster a relaxed attitude towards homosexual activities to the point that you may even engage in them from time to time, but that doesn't actually say anything about that person's true inner sexual preferences. Which, yes, are determined during your fetal development.
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
Atmas
No one is looking for a "gay gene" anymore and the idea of a gene making you into this "other" is ridiculous. The sex organs you are born with develop independently from the brain wiring that determines your sexual preferences. Most of the time, they line up to form the standard heterosexual person, sometimes they don't. In fact, being "gay" is more of a highly varied spectrum that one could chart as a percentage. There likely isn't many people who are 100% on one side or the other, perhaps 98% at most. It would really help if you separated "being gay" from "acting gay" as well. A woman who kisses many of her female friends and perhaps even sleeps with some isn't necessarily gay, even if she is preforming a homosexual act. Yes, your environment can foster a relaxed attitude towards homosexual activities to the point that you may even engage in them from time to time, but that doesn't actually say anything about that person's true inner sexual preferences. Which, yes, are determined during your fetal development.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Are "people" born with 2 legs..Well most are..Some even 3.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Are "people" born hetero..Well most are....
Posted by divergent_ambon 1 year ago
divergent_ambon
There is certainly a biological component to it. That is very certain. But all sexuality, straight or otherwise, is also affected by upbringing.
Posted by divergent_ambon 1 year ago
divergent_ambon
There is certainly a biological component to it. That is very certain. But all sexuality, straight or otherwise, is also affected by upbringing.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by letsdebate1 1 year ago
letsdebate1
BenzylKynikosTied
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: I personally believe that people are born gay, and do not make the sudden decision to be attracted to the same sex. However, I will say that CON in this debate did have a very convincing argument.Pro did proceed to catch all of con's discrepancies. Which is why I vote Pro as to who I believe after the debate.