Is Sexual Orientation determined at birth?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Is sexual orientation determined at birth? Are LGBTQ people actually who they say they are? Yes.
Debate Format
Round 1: Opening Statements (If you troll, I win)
Round 2: Rebuttals.
Round 3: Rebuttals and Conclusions.
Rules:
1. No religious arguments (e.g. "THE GREAT GOD GATORADE SAID THAT LGBTQ PEOPLE ARE GOOD.")
2. No trolling (As I said before, if you troll, I win.)
3. No cussing (Unless it is in a quote)
4. No insulting (e.g. "YOU SUCK, MY PEEPEE IS SO LARGE IT IS BIGGER THAN YOURS, I WIN and YOU LOSE)
5. No forfeiting
If you break any of these rules, it will either cause me to win the debate, or you to lose a conduct point.
Clarification: I am pro-LGBTQ, but I am not LGBTQ.
But, even with no knowledge about who you are, what your talents are, and what type of person you are; do you automatically decide that you should be gay or straight?
Secondly, my opponent demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what 'born x way' really means. It does not mean that, at the point of birth, a baby just is gay or straight, it means that that child has the genetic code, if you like, that will 'make the child gay' (for lack of better phrasing) during puberty and later development.
This brings me on to my point - handiness. I hope that my opponent would agree that handiness is a genetic characteristic, but a child is not born knowing this, it is only realised years into development. Furthermore, modern science, due to research on twins, raised both together and separately, has shown that when one twin is gay, the other is also gay around 30% of the time - more often, might I add, than when both twins will be left handed.
Ok, you completely conceded to my point. Sexual orientation is not determined at birth, it is determined later on (as you said: "during puberty and later development). We are not talking about genetics, we are talking about the time that the child knows that he is homo or heterosexual. If I didn't explain that well enough I can give you the conduct point.
Is Sexual Orientation determined at birth?
I don't understand how "handiness" fits into the argument.
Admittedly, it is rather fun when your opponent changes the parameters of the debate halfway through in order to suit his side of the argument. No, we were not talking about 'the time that the child knows that he is homo or heterosexual,' because the factor of knowledge was not once mentioned, and, of course, the title of the debate:
My opponent's current argument is exactly the same as: 'sex isn't determined at birth because a child that is born doesn't know what genitals it has!' Nonsensical. Who you are at birth Is determined by genetics, which is why they can't just be ignored, as he claims. For example, I had blonde hair at birth and early childhood, and yet I now have brown. This is solely determined at birth - that is to say, I had those genes at birth.
I had those genes at birth.
I may not have explained this clear enough, but the point was that genes have a greater influence on sexuality than handiness. If you want more information, this wiki article is a great starting point.
And, yes, we are talking about the times that the child knows that he is homo or heterosexual. As mentioned in the description "Are LGBTQ people actually who they say they are?", which means that we are talking about if the person knows (says) his/her's sexual orientation.
When have I ever said that "sex isn't determined at birth because a child doesn't know what genitals it has". I have never implied that, or said that. Don't use false quotes.
My opponent's current argument is exactly the same as: 'sex isn't determined at birth because a child that is born doesn't know what genitals it has!' Nonsensical. Who you are at birth Is determined by genetics, which is why they can't just be ignored, as he claims. For example, I had blonde hair at birth and early childhood, and yet I now have brown. This is solely determined at birth - that is to say, I had those genes at birth
Also, genes are created at conception which is BEFORE birth, so even if there was a gene called a "gay gene" it would have been made before birth, which is still not at birth. But, you already said this yourself too.
Let me clear up this confusion.
Con doesn’t appear to offer a cogent thesis here of why he feels that homosexuality isn’t determined at birth.
They key arguments presented by con are that children don’t know what sex or gender they are at the time of birth: this appears to be an odd semantic argument, and one dealt with well by pro - by pointing out the clear and reasonable interpretation of the resolution implies that homosexuality is genetic, or set by the time of birth.
Cons second point, is against a semantic twist by arguing that genetics are determined before birth, which was dismissed by pro as changing the definition.
As a result, I feel it necessary to reject pros approach to this debate as both irrelevant to the resolution, and bordering on trolling.
Pros argument that homosexuality has a genetic component remains unchallenged by con, and clearly meets pros burden of proof in the context of how the resolution is worded, pro offers a basic summary of the information that establishes that homosexuality has a genetic component with how twins example - though could have used more sources, and been a bit more specific.
As a result of this, this goes to pro: he has met his burden of proof here, while con resorts to left field context changing and quasi-semantic arguments that were easily rebuked by pro.
R1-Con= a person who is just born couldn't even understand the concept of sexual orientation, therefore they're orientation isn't determined at birth but after birth.
R1Pro= The baby doesn't decide the sexual orientation, the genes do. This is similar to how handiness is determined, by genes. Also, twins are very likely(when compared to the regular population) to both be gay(30%), thus proving that similar genes does produce a correlation in sexual orientation.
Me- Pro won this round, he used statistics(which weren't sited), got to bring him down for that, but the data is convincing, showing how similar genes caused a correlation in sexual preference was much better than saying that it's determined after birth with no data to back that up. Con does state though that babies can't understand the concept of sexual orientation, but pros argument about genetics mitigates this. Good round for both but Pro won.
R2-Con=States how Pro concedes by stating that they're talking about when the child knows he is gay, making genes irrelevant. Good on con for calling pro out for not sourcing.
R2-PRO=States how con never clarified that they were talking about the time the person knows they're gay. Then goes on to equate what con is doing to saying sex is determined after birth because the baby doesn't understand biological sex. Good on Pro for posting his source.
Me-Pro won this round, con shifted the goal posts, con in the future should clarify the parameters of the debate, this fact, which pro points out costs him the round.
R3-Con=States how he didn't change the parameters. Then goes on to say that if a gay gene exists than Sexual orientation should be determined before birth,not at birth as pro claims.
R3-Pro=States that when a person knows they're gay and when it's determined are different questions. He addresses the statement about a gay gene by stating that if he knows how to drive a car at 18 it doesn't mean he doesn't know how to at 19.
Me=Pro won round 3 largely by attacking the title of the debate, stating how con is equating knowing you're gay with having your orientation determined at birth. Pro then stated that just because something is determined before birth doesn't mean it's not determined at birth as well. He achieved this with an analogy.
Not a straw man. I think you're really talking past me here. We aren't talking about labeling people as gay. We are talking about people actually being gay (same sex attraction=gay). You said that a way to know someone is gay is to see them commit "same-sex actions" or for then to tell us. Then you conceded that straight people can commit these same-sex acts. People can also lie, so these examples you provided are inadequate. My position is that nurture plays a very large role as to whether or not they act on these urges, but nature causes the urges. Urges are what makes someone gay.
>>you're making the claim that being gay is 100% a choice
Strawman? You seriously can't even read.
What I said: I am not saying being gay is a choice. I am saying someone being gay is more of a Nurture thing than Nature.
>>You're saying that until they CHOOSE to tell someone or commit the act, they are not gay.
How would you or the person in question would no?
Can I survive a jump off a cliff if I haven't tested it?
>>Being gay has nothing to do with actions.
We label people based on actions they commit.
>>Someone can be straight and commit same sex acts.
Yes. What is your point?
>>What is your actual disagreement here?
Other then the strawman here you claimed it is 80-90% Nature
You said: I'm more of a 80-90% nature kind of person for most issues
But the thing is..... I'm not making claims about anyone.
I'm not saying I know anyone is gay without having evidence. However, you're making the claim that being gay is 100% a choice (despite what you said earlier). You're saying that until they CHOOSE to tell someone or commit the act, they are not gay.
Being gay has nothing to do with actions. Someone can have same sex attraction and not act on it. Someone can be straight and commit same sex acts. What is your actual disagreement here?
What we know does impact reality. If we don't know anything how can we make claims about reality?
Our knowledge to the fact that someone is gay is what we require to know if someone is gay.
I claim that in order for us to know and for them to truly understand what they might be feeling they would need to act upon it. If they don't act upon it then they are not gay due to same-sex actions. They are gay in their head or theoretically which removing the positive of the theoretical really has no pragmatic purpose if never acted upon outside the mind.
I feel as though there may have been some confusion as to my stance. I don't claim to know people are gay. I claim that they know, which makes it real. This is what makes them gay, not our knowledge of theirs acts and feelings
Ok... but whether or not we know has nothing to do with reality, Yes? My point has been: someone is gay if they are gay. Our knowledge of the fact is utterly irrelevant. Do you find fault with that claim?
People could be gay. You won't know it until they tell you or you see them do a same-sex act.
We not knowing someone is gay does mean they can or cannot be gay. We can't go into everyone's mind instead would have to wait and trust a claim made by the person.
If someone is starving and you can't prove they are or not starving then we don't know what is going on.
If someone is trapped in a well and you can't prove it then we don't know what is or isn't in the well.
We don't know until we know.
No, they could be true. I think based on personal experience, we could say that one or both of those is highly unlikely, though. However, being gay isn't an abstract concept that has never been proven before. What is your issue about a truth existing that we aren't aware of? I'm not aware of anyone starving in my state right now. Does that mean that no one is starving? If someone is trapped in a well, but no one knows about it, is no one in that well? Of course they are.
Okay then.
I also take the position we are in a matrix. We just don't know it yet.
I also take the position climate change will end life. We just don't know it yet.
Have any problems with what I said?
They are still a murderer. We just don't know it yet. Someone can be gay without us knowing, too. I believe the phrase is "in the closet".
Tell me is a murderer still a murderer if no one has proven they did it?
Like let's pretend you have a schizophrenic fellow. He hears voices constantly telling him to do stuff, but he doesn't listen to them. He is still schizophrenic
Yes you can be gay without expressing it. Being gay means you are attracted to someone of the same sex. Even if they do not act on those feelings, they still exist. I don't see why you have to act on feelings to validate their existence.
You can support the Republican party on a philosophical level. You can find it the better of the two parties but still not vote for them.
You didn't really address what I said.
If a gay man had no way of expressing their feelings would they still be gay?
Acting upon those makes people an assigned category. If you vote Republican you support the Republican party. If you act on same-sex acts you are gay.
I think that being gay is 100% nature. Whether or not they will act upon these feelings is more of where nurture kicks in.
I mean, even if there was no men, a guy could still be gay. He wouldn't be attracted to women. He would think he didn't have any desire for a mate, but those hidden feelings would exist. Same with repressing the feelings. Even if you dont show your attraction or try to deny it, it still exists. I'm more of a 80-90% nature kind of person for most issues
Think of Nature as internal. Nurture as external.
I am not saying being gay is a choice. I am saying someone being gay is more of a Nurture thing than Nature.
I think 20/80 or 40/60. Something like that.
Sure the Nature might be more important but I can't deny the amount of external support was used to make that happen. So much so it overshadows the Nature because that was just stepping stone not the thing that slowly made the Nature prosper.
Nature V Nurture
If a gay person found no men how would he be gay?
If a gay person had no way of showing his feelings how would he be gay?
That is why I think Nurture plays a part more in pretty much anything. Nature can make it easier to attain things like beauty, muscle etc. So basically Nurture does most of the work but Nature can be the oomph to even allow that to occur or make it easier or beat people who rely only on Nurture.
What are your thoughts? I'm having a hard time thinking of how someone could become gay through choice.
Better representation of his argument is that he believes nurture plays more of a role in a person's sexual preferences than nature.
I'm sorry, I may have to post my argument at the last minute because of personal stuff, I'm going to a funeral :( , and/maybe forfeit one round.
Yes
Ok, so you're saying that homosexuality is not at all genetic. You are saying it is 100% a choice?
My side on this debate doesn't mean that I am homosexual, it just proves that I think that you can't be decided as straight, or even gay at birth. You have to decide over time. Women are not met to be with men, and vice versa.
whoever accepts prepare to be publicly shamed because this website is to homosexual
In what way are you pro-alphabet?
Our perception of time only goes in one direction. Time is actually absolute though, so anything that "will be" determined is necessarily already determined. Furthermore, even if time didn't work that way, a computer with an unfathomably vast CPU could plot the entire universe from start to finish with 100% accuracy based only on exact measurements of the first instant of the Big Bang. There is nothing to be determined that isn't already.
Determinism also popped right into my head, but thought of the same problem. I hate that I am less creative than I think
I am pro-LGBTQ, which means I think that people can decide their gender/sexual orientation NOT during birth. Which means that I do NOT think sexual orientation always has to be determined at birth. I am Con-Sexual orientation is determined at birth and Pro-LGBTQ. If you need more clarification, I would be happy to explain more deeply.
A religious argument in favor of this resolution just popped into my head. God commands it!
...
Incidentally, determinism would cover it broadly but someone might pull semantics of 'well that would mean it's determined before birth...'
If you are con, and don't think that sexual "orientation" is determined at birth, I would be willing to debate this with you.
I agree with oromagi, are you pro or con?
Your format indicates that u will prove that sexual orientation is NOT determined @ birth. But your description answers the question affirmative. Why say at birth rather than genetically or at conception? How shall we interpret the orange peel reference?