Instigator / Con
0
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#3685
*You* disprove that homosexuality is nature's design of or for birth control.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 26,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
1
1709
rating
565
debates
68.23%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
*You* prove, meaning your burden to show the topic statement can be done.
What you're doing is attempting to build a water dam so solid, so strong, my points that are likened to water won't be able to permeate.
Do you follow?
If not, please leave a comment or send a message.
Round 1
Con
#1
The natural desire to administer the act of homosexuality produces no off spring, prevents fertilization, controls birth.
Short and sweet. No wonder other folks wanted the Con side.
Round 2
Con
#3
Well this is off topic but I don't mind responding to the request.
Prove that nature created a design. I can't prove that.
Nature has a design but to prove it was created by nature, you're asking the wrong one.
Now back on topic. Homosexuals that were not taught to be attracted to the same sex but just are act on their attraction. Out of the act will produce no offspring thus implementing the control of birth.
Yes this is a cut and dry topic but it just came to mind one day.
Pro
#4
I vehemently deny that nature has a design, it did not ever make a design and is randomly generated with 'designs' being patterns that began as random mutations and didn't get naturally selected out.
Being gay was simply a trait that didn't get selected out, I guess some gays were bi enough to fuck others or some bis were straight enough etc.
There was not enough reason for homosexuality to get selected out, there was absolutely no design involved.
Round 3
Con
#5
" is randomly generated with 'designs' being patterns that began as random mutations and didn't get naturally selected out. "
What does" generated " mean as you say?
You say you deny something being designed but has a design.
This is like tomato tomah-to. Something that has a design has a structure. A design is a structure.
It's something that has a particular form, shape, make.
That in itself is separate from what brought it about in regards to whether there was premeditation or intent or arbitration.
Just like you can say all of the solar system is a design from the big bang if one believes that.
Also anything that is innate and not externally influenced by education or programming is natural.
In other words, something that just is alone.
"Being gay was simply a trait that didn't get selected out"
Selected out naturally or was it done socially?
"There was not enough reason for homosexuality to get selected out, there was absolutely no design involved."
Let's break this down.
What is homosexuality?
It's the desire or desire and act of acting on those desires of sexual activity with the same sex based on being attracted to do so.
Now where does this derive from ?
You mentioned about mutations. Well mutations of what?
Of genetic material, genetic substance, is that correct?
Well genetic material and genetic substance has a form. It has a structure.
On top of that, it's all innate or natural.
Do believe it is not?
So therefore a natural way or nature's way to prevent births, it's within.
The homosexual is doing a natural act, within their nature to control birth.
Really just two and two together. But you have to get your terms together with what natural and design is, where it starts and stops .
Pro
#6
" is randomly generated with 'designs' being patterns that began as random mutations and didn't get naturally selected out. "What does" generated " mean as you say?
generated by random mutations in the DNA.
In fact this is lexically linked to the term 'generation' (noun):
A form or stage in the life cycle of an organism.All of the offspring that are at the same stage of descent from a common ancestor.The average interval of time between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.A group of individuals born and living about the same time.A group of generally contemporaneous individuals regarded as having common cultural or social characteristics and attitudes.The act or process of generating; origination, production, or procreation.
The random generation that occurs before a 'generation' of beings within a species is the DNA randomly mutating and then that mutated/tweaked trait that is a little different from the rest of the 'generation' ends up being an edge. This is of course stronger if it's in a male because males that are genetically enhanced in adaptation to their environment can reproduce hardcore compared to females, over their life.
What I would like to note is that I am not saying at all that homosexuality was a desirable and selected trait in evolution, that is what Pro is suggesting. I am saying that it was not genetically significant enough (due to bisexual proclivity amongst enough gay/lesbian-leaners) that when the genes that lead to a male being gay or female being lesbian occured, it didn't manifest to pure homosexuality often enough to stop our species reproducing with the genes carried over from the original 'gay-leaning bicurious people' who could reproduce but didn't necessarily enjoy the sex too much.
Do not forget that threesomes and polygamous arrangements occured so for lesbians it was much more viable to find a sexually appeasing arrangement than gay men. Gay men, however, could probably enjoy some doggystyle and perhaps more muscular, built women (or slimmer women if into twink males) that enabled them to compensate heterosexually/bisexually with repressed homosexual urges.
Nothing about homosexuality was nature's design, it was simply randomly generated and not selected out.
Definition of generate1: to bring into existenceb: to originate by a vital, chemical, or physical process
You say you deny something being designed but has a design.
Firstly, grammatically 'nature's design' would be much more sensible to interpret as nature/god having designed something than saying 'nature happens to have some vague structure that appears design-like'.
If you say something's design and mean pertaining to it you should have said 'nature's design contains homosexuality and it completely separately happens to be a form of birth control'. What your resolution/title implies strongly is that it's part of a design to keep the population from overdoing itself and this is blatantly untrue because our species grew for millennia and there's still plenty of people with the proclivity towards homosexuality, this is neither negative nor positive correlation, there's nothing about it that implies there's a design that makes more gays when overpopulated (as a proportion, closeted or not).
This is like tomato tomah-to. Something that has a design has a structure. A design is a structure.
No, it is not.
It's something that has a particular form, shape, make.
Let me explain something.
design (noun):
design
nounDefinition of design (Entry 2 of 2)1a: a particular purpose or intention held in view by an individual or groupb: deliberate purposive planning2: a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down3: a deliberate undercover project or scheme5a: an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding : PATTERN, MOTIFthe general design of the epicb: a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (such as a scientific experiment)also : the process of preparing this
You have not proved that even if you want some niche definition to apply where you needn't prove the designer and intent behind the design, you still have not proven that nature is designed at all nor that it ever pushed forth a design of the macro-scale 'population control' level you are implying.
That in itself is separate from what brought it about in regards to whether there was premeditation or intent or arbitration.
No, not at all, a design is a premeditated, planned and purposeful scheme/project.
Just like you can say all of the solar system is a design from the big bang if one believes that.
Only if you believe a god is behind it or that the universe itself is conscious and designing it... or some demigod aliens.
Also anything that is innate and not externally influenced by education or programming is natural.
Hmm, I could think of unnatural things that are externally influenced by things that aren't education, such as chemicals and circumstance but sure, I get the gist of what you're saying.
In other words, something that just is alone.
Okay, I kind of agree, if things are left to play out without interference they are relatively very natural, for better or worse.
"Being gay was simply a trait that didn't get selected out"Selected out naturally or was it done socially?
It was tried to be selected out socially, it always failed to be selected out naturally due to the capacity for bisexuality in enough gays and lesbians to keep the gene for it passing down, plus hot threesomes and all that enables homosexuals to reproduce and get pleasure from the one that's their own sex (back then gender and biological sex were intertwined).
"There was not enough reason for homosexuality to get selected out, there was absolutely no design involved."Let's break this down.What is homosexuality?It's the desire or desire and act of acting on those desires of sexual activity with the same sex based on being attracted to do so.
I disagree, it is not the act. A virgin can be a homosexual and know they are before actually having sex.
- You don’t have to be dating or have a sexual experience with someone to know you’re straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or queer. You might be doing these things and still not feel sure about your sexuality.
Can other people tell what my sexual orientation is?
No. A person only knows your sexual orientation if you tell them. Sexual orientation describes how you feel inside, and only you know what it’s like to be you.
Some people may think they can guess if a person is lesbian, gay, or bisexual based on superficial factors like how they look, dress, or behave. These are stereotypes, or very simplified judgments, about how lesbian, gay, and bisexual people act. But just like heterosexuals, there are many different ways that homosexual and bisexual people look, dress, and behave. Using stereotypes to label someone else’s sexual orientation can be inaccurate and hurtful.
The act is not the relevant part to defining a homosexual, this is why I am telling you that gays were able to 'bend bi' at times in the past if they had any capacity for it, meaning people with the 'gay gene' so to speak were able to psychologically bend bisexual enough to pass it down, that's literally how it happened. Either you admit it or your whole scheme is then defied anyway as you're saying it isn't innate and natural.
Now where does this derive from ?You mentioned about mutations. Well mutations of what?
Chromosome linkage studies of sexual orientation have indicated the presence of multiple contributing genetic factors throughout the genome. In 1993, Dean Hamer and colleagues published findings from a linkage analysis of a sample of 76 gay brothers and their families.[34] Hamer et al. found that the gay men had more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side. Gay brothers who showed this maternal pedigree were then tested for X chromosome linkage, using twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles. In another finding, thirty-three of the forty sibling pairs tested were found to have similar alleles in the distal region of Xq28, which was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers. This was popularly dubbed the "gay gene" in the media, causing significant controversy. In 1998, Sanders et al.[citation needed] reported on their similar study, in which they found that 13% of uncles of gay brothers on the maternal side were homosexual, compared with 6% on the paternal side.[35]
A later analysis by Hu et al. replicated and refined the earlier findings. This study revealed that 67% of gay brothers in a new saturated sample shared a marker on the X chromosome at Xq28.[36] Two other studies (Bailey et al., 1999; McKnight and Malcolm, 2000) failed to find a preponderance of gay relatives in the maternal line of homosexual men.[35] One study by Rice et al. in 1999 failed to replicate the Xq28 linkage results.[37] Meta-analysis of all available linkage data indicates a significant link to Xq28, but also indicates that additional genes must be present to account for the full heritability of sexual orientation.[38]
other links inside ^
I am not saying the 'gay genes' is a singular gene, I'm saying it was partly genetic for sure and may be multiple genes at play (different ones for lesbians than gays) this propensity towards homosexuality is obviously not concrete in pansexuals and bisexuals.
The new finding is consistent with multiple earlier studies of twins that indicated same-sex attraction is a heritable trait.A new study suggests that genes are responsible for between 8% and 25% of same-sex preference.The 2019 study is the latest in a hunt for “gay genes” that began in 1993, when Dean Hamer linked male homosexuality to a section of the X chromosome. As the ease and affordability of genome sequencing increased, additional gene candidates have emerged with potential links to homosexual behavior. So-called genome-wide association studies identified a gene called SLITRK6, which is active in a brain region called the diencephalon that differs in size between people who are homosexual or heterosexual.Genetic studies in mice have uncovered additional gene candidates that could influence sexual preference. A 2010 study linked sexual preference to a gene called fucose mutarotase. When the gene was deleted in female mice, they were attracted to female odors and preferred to mount females rather than males.Other studies have shown that disruption of a gene called TRPC2 can cause female mice to act like males. Male mice lacking TRPC2 no longer display male-male aggression, and they initiate sexual behaviors toward both males and females. Expressed in the brain, TRPC2 functions in the recognition of pheromones, chemicals that are released by one member of a species to elicit a response in another.With multiple gene candidates being linked to homosexuality, it seemed highly unlikely that a single “gay” gene exists. This idea is further supported by the new study, which identified five new genetic loci (fixed positions on chromosomes) correlating with same-sex activity: two that appeared in men and women, two only in men, and one only in women.How might these genes influence same-sex behavior?I find it intriguing that some of the genes from men identified in Ganna’s study are associated with olfactory systems, a finding that has parallels to the work in mice. Ganna’s group found other gene variants that may be linked with sex hormone regulation, which other scientists have previously suggested plays a large role in shaping the brain in ways that influence sexual behavior.Conditions in the uterus during pregnancy are thought to influence the sexual preferences of the child.Males with a genetic condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome can develop female genitalia and are usually brought up as girls, despite being genetically male – with an X and Y chromosome – and they are attracted to men. This suggests that testosterone is needed to “masculinize” a prenatal brain; if that doesn’t happen, the child will grow up to desire men.Similarly, girls who have a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia are exposed to unusually high levels of male hormones like testosterone while in the womb, which may masculinize their brain and increase the odds of lesbianism.It’s also possible that hormonal shifts during pregnancy could affect how a fetus’ brain is configured. In rats, manipulation of hormones during pregnancy produces offspring that exhibit homosexual behavior.
It's around 25% purely genetic, the other 75% comes from life situations (but I believe if you have the gene you never are truly heterosexual, you may be bi though).
I am not sure what to tell you, you said it was nature's design, not me. Prove nature has a design then come back to me about saying homosexuality is part of the design, you are asking me to spoonfeed you how it could be innate and part of an imaginary design that I'm telling you isn't a design but a randomly occuring series of events that have resulted in 'nature'.
Round 4
Con
#7
"Nothing about homosexuality was nature's design, it was simply randomly generated and not selected out."
Was it simply randomly generated and not selected out naturally?
It appears that these other terms being used are put forth to skirt around the actuality at hand.
We know all this is innate. From within something is the nature of . Genetic makeup is crafted from within.
"Definition of generate
transitive verb
1: to bring into existence"
Cause and effect like I said.
"Firstly, grammatically 'nature's design' would be much more sensible to interpret as nature/god having designed something than saying 'nature happens to have some vague structure that appears design-like'.
If you say something's design and mean pertaining to it you should have said 'nature's design contains homosexuality and it completely separately happens to be a form of birth control'. What your resolution/title implies strongly is that it's part of a design to keep the population from overdoing itself and this is blatantly untrue because our species grew for millennia and there's still plenty of people with the proclivity towards homosexuality, this is neither negative nor positive correlation, there's nothing about it that implies there's a design that makes more gays when overpopulated (as a proportion, closeted or not)."
I think you are overcomplicating it really.
I want to drive it back to the simpler route. Homosexuality has a nature, is that correct?
Homosexuality is not taught. So the act thereof controls births via prevention of them by a natural act of desire according to that nature thereof.
That's really it. I believe you are adding all these other layers to give you a platform of rebuttal. But I'm not getting into all that complexity.
It's just as straightforward as put and that's why one person or more wanted this side of the topic instead because of that cut and dry point.
A natural act of birth prevention.
Don't try to interpret and figure out what somebody means without just communicating directly as we're doing.
Just ask straight up, what do you mean by that?
I didn't take the word "generate" and run with it. I asked you what do you mean when you use that term.
"This is like tomato tomah-to. Something that has a design has a structure. A design is a structure. "
"No, it is not. "
It is when I'm talking. We look at the structure of anything like a tire, a road, a hand , an eye, these are all structures and designs crafted with shapes and forms.
The earth, the solar system, all have crafts , structures and shapes.
I think you see the word " design " and automatically register it as something with a personal premeditated designer.
It's just cause and effect. Like again with generator and the term you used " generated ". Designer, designed, generator, generated.
The big bang, is the generator, the cause that generated celestial elements, the effect. It brought about an existence like an electric or energy generator.
When something is designed, it was brought about to existence like a brick building or what have you.
"Let me explain something.
design (noun):
design
noun
Definition of design (Entry 2 of 2)
1a: a particular purpose or intention held in view by an individual or group "
Hopefully you are not reading into this. You're not assuming that an individual or group has to be a personal entity with an intent are you?
An individual or a group of genes have a function and purpose. They're not just there for the sake of being there. They're coded or have code to establish much of our designed organic traits which are the effects of those genes just like any purpose that has an effect.
": a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down
3: a deliberate undercover project or scheme
5a: an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding : PATTERN, MOTIFthe general design of the epic
b: a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (such as a scientific experiment)also : the process of preparing this"
That's what our genes and cells do. Don't limit this to persons or minds.
"You have not proved that even if you want some niche definition to apply where you needn't prove the designer and intent behind the design, you still have not proven that nature is designed at all nor that it ever pushed forth a design of the macro-scale 'population control' level you are implying."
We don't have to get tripped up with definitions. As long as we can understand each other because we're trying to communicate, are we not?
So we are and I'll just represent this as all I'm trying to say and communicate to you.
Homosexuality is not taught. So the act thereof controls births via prevention of them by a natural act of desire according to that nature thereof.
Now if you have any refutation for that , let's go.
Somehow you're getting away from homosexuality being a natural occurrence. Do you reject that or is that something you can't refute?
"No, not at all, a design is a premeditated, planned and purposeful scheme/project."
Like our genes.
"Only if you believe a god is behind it or that the universe itself is conscious and designing it... or some demigod aliens."
Ok so the big bang consists of what according to the theory?
What are its characteristics?
See without even you realizing it , as it's happening, the bang which is the cause purposed itself as its occurring distributing its effect.
Likewise with the sun. The sun with its explosions has an effect. Things have effects from causes like any purpose/intent.
You think of intent, right away you register the mind or consciousness.
Which an explosion doesn't have but still has a cause or purpose.
If I ask you "what can I do to help your cause or your purpose?"
You're telling me what I'd be doing to contribute to the effect.
"Hmm, I could think of unnatural things that are externally influenced by things that aren't education, such as chemicals and circumstance but sure, I get the gist of what you're saying."
Right , education is just one example. I also mentioned programming. But you can add to the list.
Basically anything not naturally. Let us not step all over each other's toes.
"Okay, I kind of agree, if things are left to play out without interference they are relatively very natural, for better or worse."
"I kind of agree ".
Don't be hesitate with it. You get a little understanding, you'll see what I'm talking about.
"It was tried to be selected out socially, it always failed to be selected out naturally"
Just for the record here in layman's terms, is homosexuality natural or unnatural?
"I disagree, it is not the act. A virgin can be a homosexual and know they are before actually having sex."
I think you went over too fast of what I stated.
I said the desire or desire and act .
It's the desire or, key terms " desire or ".
So I left open there the existence of homosexuality without a physical act.
"The act is not the relevant part to defining a homosexual,"
It can be but not necessarily. When you see the act of two individuals, they're two homosexuals acting out the sexuality.
"I am not sure what to tell you, you said it was nature's design, not me."
Yes you do agree that it's a natural function to prevent births point blank.
Anything stemming of nature is natural. Is it not?
Let us not get hung up in this personal creator thing. You've taken the wrong aspect on this topic.
" Prove nature has a design then come back to me about saying homosexuality is part of the design,"
It's proven without you realizing it. Do you agree there's a function to homosexuality?
Do you agree there's a cause of it that is responsible for traits of unique individual physical attractions?
If you say yes , my point is not outside of that. You maybe struggling with how I explain all of this. But biology may beg to differ if you say no.
" you are asking me to spoonfeed you how it could be innate and part of an imaginary design that I'm telling you isn't a design but a randomly occuring series of events that have resulted in 'nature'."
A randomly occuring series of events are still a series of causes and effects/results.
It's like you're ingrained with this concept of randomness and design not going together.
I can pull a name out of hat at random. It was still designed or intended to pull a name as it causes to pull a name out of a hat.
The ball falls randomly on a roulette wheel number. The thing was designed to do what it does . It was crafted, formed , structured to pull off a function to get a result.
Now you can argue probability which still has cause to an effect but how many more other things have probability that we're calling arbitration?
For instance, theories to how everything came about like the multiverse, parallel universe and the likelihood of all that so forth and so on.
Homosexuality is the natural way or has within its nature to supply birth control.
That's either true or false.
Pro
#8
Con has proven absolutely nothing about nature's design, nor has he handled the fact that gays still reproduce if bi enough and that now it clearly has failed.
If everything resulting from nature is part of its design, so was in-vitro fertilisation and hiring surrgoate mothers (or sperm donors).
Round 5
Pro
#10
Con failed to ever prove that nature itself specifically designed or was designed, he also failed to address the issue of naturally gay people that managed to pull through with bisexual-bending sex to reproduce or the fact that humans naturally developed surrogacy and such later.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
"Prove that nature created a design. I can't prove that."
"anything that is innate and not externally influenced by education or programming is natural. ... In other words, something that just is alone."
Pro gives a clear definition of "design" in this debate. Con never contends these definitions. "purpose or intention," "deliberate purposive," " means to an end"; all of these are indicative of an intelligent will doing something with INTENT, which Con fails to demonstrate nature has. Con has burden of proof as the instigator, despite how he words the title claim, BoP is on the party making the affirmative claim, i.e., "homosexuality is nature's design of or for birth control."
Although this is a winner selection debate, the legibility of Con's arguments was so egregious that i had to bring it up. Use the quote blocks for longer (several times multiple paragraphs were quoted at once) quotes, especially if they are of the opponent's argument. I had to reread Con's rounds several times because it was difficult to keep track of when he was quoting.
Pro wins
So there are individuals on here that actually believe homosexuality does not prevent child births, wow .
I think I've said all I need about this topic. If you still are not understanding, we can have a discussion later.
You have a point, there is a major skill gap and I am happy to push myself into a murkier topic.
Now why should I take the other side of the debate?
Just so it's harder for me to argue I guess. I can see what's going on here.
Get out of here.
I don't have to fall for that.
Y'all are good debaters. Knock out that more challenging side.
I might take this one if you can resolve the double negative. How about you positively assert that homosexuality is not a natural form of birth control? It seems to me that gay sex prevents pregnancies without any artificial intervention.