CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Ask the gays among you.
I will not tolerate any BS in this debate. I will ban anyone who I think is abusive within this debate, gay or not gay. (No personal attacks acceptable, attack the argument)
The question:
**If being gay is indeed genetic, as opposed to choice, would the gay population of the US support legislation that would fund genetic research aimed at regulating the births of the genetically gay?**
I'm not picking a fight; I'm aiming to settle a fight!
I'm tired of the angry debates about gays. The gay debate [bad pun] has been argued ad nauseam. I hope this debate will settle for a time that gays are not gay about being gay.
It has been my experience that gays are not asking you to be gay, but are asking you to stop with the persecution of gays.
Although I agree with you that there are people who don't like gay individuals, I don't know that I would go as far as calling it a persecution.
BTW, I've always argued that calling homosexuality a genetic disorder is a two edge sword. But so is calling homosexuality a lifestyle choice. Lets face it, they are between a rock and a hard place. In these types of situations, my solution is to keep a low profile (i.e., fit in).
1. Homosexuals do experience varying levels of persecution depending on their region and how "out" they are.
I myself have been threatened (death threats included), chased, attacked, and otherwise persecuted simple for being a homosexual. That's going from High School, through College, to adulthood....5 towns and cities total.
I've never met a gay person who hasn't had some sort of harassment or persecution. We all have our stories, more or less.
In my state and quite a few others, homosexuality was criminalized until a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Marriage between two of the same sex, a right (with special tax privileges) enjoyed by straight couples is denied to homosexuals in most states. Many states also do not allow gay adoption of children and give absolutely no benefits or legal standing to domestic partners.
2. The debate is not between: Is homosexuality learned or a genetic disorder. The debate is between is homosexuality learned or a genetic trait.
Calling it a genetic disorder implies that it is a bad trait, something that is inherently harmful/detrimental to the person or surrounding persons. It's an extremely biased and incorrect way of stating the terms of the debate, and not at all intellectually honest.
Hmmm..., so lets see.... you have experienced varying levels of persecution....
a couple of questions come to mind....
1. How do they know you're gay? Do you try to fit in? Are you overly flamboyant (I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just trying to get a clearer picture).
2. If someone was persecuted for some genetic reason then i would call that a disorder because persecution is a bad trait, something that is inherently harmful/detrimental to the person.
1. I am gay, people know I am gay. I don't understand what "trying to fit in" means. I am not flamboyant (subjective), and I am not "straight acting"(subjective). I am an individual with an individual personality. Most people can't tell right off the bat that I am gay, usually. Sometimes I can appear more feminine, sometimes I seem more masculine. It depends on my mood, the day, and which aspects of my individual personality I feel the need to express. Also, the more people get to know me the more they...you know...know who I am.
You do realize that when people date other people, everyone they know generally knows that. It is pretty normal for people to know about each others relationships. And word gets around anyways.
"2. If someone was persecuted for some genetic reason then i would call that a disorder because persecution is a bad trait, something that is inherently harmful/detrimental to the person."
Really now? So black people are a genetic disorder? Or..at least, their pigment is a genetic disorder? What about white people? What about Asians? Generally speaking, genetic disorders don't go away given what culture or situation a person is in.
Under your definition, white skin is a genetic disorder if a white individual is living in Gambia and is being persecuted by those with black skin. And, if a straight person lives in a predominantly homosexual neighborhood and is harassed for being straight, they suddenly have a genetic disorder too!
Also, is it a genetic disorder only when certain people are around? If I am around gay-friendly people, am I temporarily cured? If I am around bigots does my "genetic disorder" come back?
Could you please contact your local professor of biology and have them inform you of what the standard definition of "genetic disorder" is. I think you would greatly benefit from the explanation.
Also:
The word "inherently" is used improperly. People reacting to the effects of, or the knowledge of a trait is not considered inherent.
The point I'm trying to make is that saying that homosexuality is genetically induced is a two edge sword because then it can be perceived as a genetic disorder. In nature a "true" homosexual cannot reproduce. This is an evolutionary dead end and can thus be construed as a disorder because it not beneficial for the species.
Whether it can perceived as a genetic disorder is inconsequential. Homosexuals don't have to make sure people don't come to false conclusions, that isn't our responsibility.
Secondly, homosexuality is not an "evolutionary dead-end" for a number of reasons:
1. Homosexuals can reproduce, we have been reproducing for a long time.
2. Not reproducing traditionally, or for the same reasons as straight people, is not detrimental to the species.
Even if we didn't reproduce at all ourselves, there is a reason why straight couples have been producing gay children for thousands of years. We do serve a purpose.
For every male homosexual born, there is one less competitor for straight males. The fact is, straight men greatly benefit every time a gay man is produced. It puts less pressure on mate selection and competition.
Additionally, women benefit from a male companion that will never be interested in reproducing with them. They find safety, and a male point of view without all the messy relationship and sex stuff.
Also, because we are no longer a primitive society, with a primitive economy and a need to reproduce as much as possible as a simple matter of survival, there are lots more reasons to exist. A diverse modern economy needs as many points of view as possible. Homosexuals contribute a unique point of view and can create unique works of art, literature, technology, and political processes.
So let me make this clear: you are asking me if I think it would be okay for the government to genetically alter/regulate individuals to make sure they are not gay?
No, that is not acceptable in any sense of the word. You might as well genetically screen and alter black people, or red haired people, or people with poor eyesight.
You would be, in effect, creating a soft-genocide aimed at wiping out an entire category of people. A people with a history, culture, identity, and abilities. It's absolutely wrong, an infringement on our basic humanity, our right to exist. It is, also, utterly criminal and, depending on how it was implemented, unconstitutional.
Also, there is no reason to eliminate homosexuality from the population, there is no evidence of any detriment. In fact, there is ample evidence that homosexuals contribute significantly to society, same as any other group of people. There are behaviors and experiences that homosexuals use to help the rest of the population.
We have a great deal of cultural input, and we offer alot of opportunities to women who would like male friends (and the benefits therein) without the messy sexual entanglements. Not only that, but every time a gay man is born a straight man has one less person to compete with for a mate. (That is often cited as a reason why the chances of homosexuality in a male infant increases the more older brothers he has).
Besides, in a modern world economy a multitude of perspectives and ideas are crucial. Innovation and unusual ways of thinking often bring productive results. New technologies, ideas, products, and sciences are created by people with unique experiences and understandings.
The question of this debate clearly allows you an opportunity to advocate for the number of the gay populace of the US.
You could have argued that the US has too few gays, and any legislation that would increase that number will be supported by the gay population of the US.
Reconsider the terms of the question, and you will find that I did not ask the question you answered.
(I did not establish the application of the hypothetical legislation; I left that for the participants of this debate.)
My personal stance - I'm against homosexuality and for the above mentioned legislation IF homosexuality is a genetic cause.
I haven't asked any gays because I don't really know any but off the top of my head I really doubt the majority would want there to be less homosexuals. However there may be a minority of gays who feel that they would prefer to be straight than to go through what they had to i.e. the confusions, letting the family know, being shunned by friends etc.
But seeing as the population as a whole would get to vote on this bill I think chances are it may be passed.
"My personal stance - I'm against homosexuality." That's a bit like being against having blue eyes or brown hair. You can be against it all day long, but it won't change the fact that some people are just gay. Perhaps the fact that you don't know any gay people is a start to the problem. In general, people who actually know a gay or lesbian person are less likely to be homophobic.
The original question is horrifying and offensive on its face. Basically, the original poster asks this question in more words: will gays support the complete annihilation of their people? Well, the answer is no. They will not.
As for gays that prefer to be straight, it's been proven over and over that this is not possible, despite the junk science of certain religious groups. Those wishing to switch sexual preferences feel that way because of people and the original poster who aren't even sure that they should be allowed to exist.
I wonder if anybody polled the Jews before they were carted off to "camp." Surely if asked, "Hey, do you mind if we destroy your whole race?" some of them must have answered, "No problem!"
That's a bit like being against having blue eyes or brown hair
Only if it is a genetic cause. It's actually like being against peadophilia or zoophilia.
Knowing a gay person doesn't mean you're more likely to like them.. it means people who like them tend to be affiliated more with them. I knew a couple of gays and I didn't like them.
Secondly the question asks IF IT IS POSSIBLE... WILL THEY SUPPORT IT??
This is nothing similar to the Jewish holocaust. It gets tiresome when people always refer to concentration camps when it's either not relevant or not needed. Gays aren't being killed here...
If you support the idea of conception, which, judging by your response to my argument on the debate "When does life start?", I'm inclined to think that you do, then you must concede that if they start regulating the gay population through genetics, then they ARE killing gays.
But if you don't support the idea of conception then I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions.
Regulating means controlling. So it would be keeping the numbers at a certain level, not necessarily decreasing or increasing as you said. In that case, I think we should regulate the amount of humans being born so that we don't overpopulate the earth. If we're regulating the numbers of humans born, we're basically killing the rest who have the potential to be born. Or we may regulate the amount of human beings so that the earth is not underpopulated. Which means that we are creating more than nature intends for there to be. In either case, there is one group of people deciding whether we want more or less. If less, we are killing; if more, we are acting as god. Might as well regulate the ratio of men to women, or blacks to hispanics, or whites to asians.
The question of this debate, as should be self-evident to everyone, is an attempt to determine how gays and heterosexuals react to government regulation of the births of the genetically gay. The question doesn’t imply or express favor or disfavor of homosexuality or heterosexuality. However, the participants of this debate clearly exhibit their psychological view of this highly generalized question. Let’s consider the question of this debate.
If being gay is indeed genetic, as opposed to choice, would the gay population of the US support legislation that would fund genetic research aimed at regulating the births of the genetically gay?
One must ask oneself the following question: What is the objective of regulating the births of the genetically gay?
Answer: Regulation is not the objective, regulation is the means unto an undefined consequence/s. The consequence/s of the regulation is the objective of the regulation, and the regulation itself is the means unto that end. Yet the objective is not identified.
Now, reason within yourself why the question of this debate caused the participants of this debate to address issues that are neither implied nor expressed therein.
My answer: Their responses are psychological in nature instead of logical in nature. For the consequence/s of the regulation are unknown, yet the participants had pre-determined the outcome of something that remains undefined.
If you require a more detailed explanation of my analysis I will accommodate your request.
Let’s now consider your latest argument.
Regulating means controlling
Your assertion is a part of a whole. You are abstracting terms from a proper meaning of ‘regulate’ in order to establish a fallacious abstraction which supports your argument. Albeit, the full, and proper meaning of ‘regulate’ is more honestly represented in the words: to control, direct, or govern according to a rule, principle or system.
We affirm that traffic lights regulate traffic. But we would never make the mistake of inferring that traffic lights reduce or increase traffic, let alone the notion of determining the traffic number. And more to the point of this debate, unless specified (which it is not), we cannot infer that the aim of the question of this debate affects the number of gays.
Had you carefully considered the question of this debate, you would have asked the question: Which aspect of gay births does the regulation seek to address? Or, if instead you presumed the intention of the regulation, why did you not presume that the regulation could greatly benefit the gay population?
Ask yourself this final question: Why did the gay participants of this debate presume that the regulation of gay births is necessarily opposed to homosexuality? For there is nothing within the debate description that remotely suggests the same.
Consider what I stated in the debate description, “I'm aiming to settle a fight.”
I am not at all surprised with the assumptions made by the participants of the debate. Of course the responses were psychological, but then again, did you really expect anything else?
There are masses of people out there still debating on whether being gay is "wrong" or "right". So you can't really have a debate that is not emotionally charged when there are still people out there hoping to erase you.
The only way we could have a debate in which the participants predominantly use their logic to respond, is if we first established that as a society we don't think that homosexuality is "wrong" or a "disorder". Until that happens, until gay people stop feeling threatened, you will never have a logical debate.
Also, I would like to bring up another point. Before I continue with this point I would like to apologize in advance for coming to a conclusion about you that is really not my business. That conclusion is that you are straight. Why does it matter? Well it matters because in the eyes of a gay person, a straight man has started a debate on "regulating" homosexuality. You already have a charged atmosphere in your hands. The same atmosphere you would have if a white man started a debate on "regulating" the birth of black people. Or if a gay man started a debate on "regulating" the birth of straight people.
It doesn't matter that the debate does not specify the outcome of the regulation. The sheer fact that the host of the debate is straight, coupled with past hostilities perpetrated by straight people against gay people, add on top the fact that the world hasn't come to agreement about homosexuality not being "wrong", and you have a debate that is doomed to start on the wrong foot.
My final point is with regards to your use of the word "regulate". Indeed, the word itself does not imply the outcome. It does not speak of "reduction in numbers" or an "eradication" of homosexuals.
But you can't really compare the indiscriminate regulation of all traffic with traffic lights to that of humans with a particular characteristic. A better example would be to compare it to traffic lights that only regulate red cars.
I am not at all surprised with the assumptions made by the participants of the debate. Of course the responses were psychological, but then again, did you really expect anything else?
Congrats!
I created this debate with the knowledge that most participants would elicit a psychological response free from a logical response. That is the primary purpose of this debate. And the secondary purpose being of course serving as an instrument of knowledge about the psychological state of both homosexuals and heterosexuals when asked a question that is not distinct in its objective, while yet emotionally loaded in suggestion.
So, in conclusion, it is accurate to state that both homosexuals and heterosexuals could, and should, learn more about the minds of their opponents and not so much about the arguments of their opponents.
Moving on…
The example I provided of the term ‘regulate’ was not intended to serve as a comparison of two separate subjects and their predicates. But, rather was intended to demonstrate that the term ‘regulate’ does not strictly denote only favor or only prejudice.
And without seeking to even remotely entrapping you in a semantic debate about ‘discrimination’ I bring to your attention that discrimination is a necessary fact of life that should never strictly denote prejudice, and nor should ever strictly denote favor. (‘Distinguish’ is an equally relevant term to this debate.)
I do appreciate your feedback and the discernment you demonstrated therein! You are correct, and I would further add that all regulation is discrimination. It is just a shame that our English speaking brethren believe that all discrimination is wrong.
I hope I filled in some of the blanks, but not all of the blanks!
