Sarum’s Debate

Homosexuality – Nature or Nurture?


My role- 3rd affirmative must:
– reaffirm the affirmative’s team line.
– rebut all the remaining points of the negative’s case.
– the 3rd affirmative should spend about two thirds to three quarters of their time rebutting.
– present a summary of the affirmative’s case.
– round off the debate for the affirmative.

Reaffirm the affirmative’s team line

1. (Eve) Hormones

2. (Ash) Gay gene hypothalamus
Twin studies

3. (Haylee) Behavioral science
Flaws- relate to animals (there is not a great relation between human and animals sexual orientation.. etc)

Reaffirm the negative team line

1. (Rhon) Family values/issues, the jungian theory and about freud

2.(Andrew) Freud

3. (Bel)

First rebuttal

Reaffirm the affirmative’s team line.
To question for the affirmative team- we argue whether homosexuality is biologically determined.
The purpose of opposing that genetics and biology is highly associated with homosexuality is not to prove whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, but rather to establish a thorough understanding of the development of homosexuality.

As we just heard the case from the negative team they have given great evidence about the result of nurture for homosexuality. We have now examined both causes for homosexuality, both biological and social.

Rhon the first speaker from the negative team argued that Homosexuality isn’t blueprinted into our genes it’s a predisposition.

As the negative team believes family support is a crucial predictor of adolescent health and adjustment. She gave an example relating back to Don Jaunism and the woman married to such a man were either doomed to meek submission or overbearing tyranny. To avoid homosexuality – marrying a female tyrant would tear him physically away from his mother. This is not a result of all causes of homosexuality? The cause of homosexuality does not lie within the responsibility of the parent or parents. This does not give us enough evidence to state that the result is caused by life experiences or parenting roles.

We do not yet know how much of what we are is determined by our DNA and how much by our life experience. But we do know that both biology and genes play an enormous part in the development of homosexuals.

Rebut all the remaining points of the negative’s case.

Okay so to sum up the affirmative team of whether the theory of nature is the existence of a “gay gene,” pointing to a genetic component to sexual orientation. Hormones, Gay gene, the hypothalamus and the flaws of behavioural science show great evidence in association to homosexuality. Research findings such as the case of the twins and animal testing show that homosexuality relates back to biological and genetics in both males and females. The subject who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and was willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rat.
With highly extensive evidence through research findings, this theory states that abnormal levels of various hormones in the womb cause a person to become attracted to his or her same sex. It has been established that human sexaul development in the womb depends on various levels of hormones such as estrogen, testostorone and androgen. If this is clearly evident homosexuality lies within the biological perspectives.
Further on the negative team has opposed that homosexuality is based on the depth of desire. Foucault believed that the depth of desire is only sexual preference that it is nothing more than superficial tastes and preferences but in contrast, homosexuality does go deeper than superficial tastes, and that homosexuality is a psychological condition, with much deeper roots than mere sexual preference. In contrast it was even said to be published “by George Howe Colt, in the LIFE magazine published in 1998 in the claim that “new studies show it’s mostly in your genes.” So if genetics didn’t play a part, then the case of the fraternal twins, reared under the same conditions, would be alike, regardless of differences in their genes.
But, while studies of the twin case show they do more closely resemble each other than do non-twin genetic brothers and sisters. So regardless of a homosexual outcome, the very similar genetic makeup of siblings will still allow for the passage of the family genetics along to the next generation therefore it is highly reasonable that’gay genes’ is also affected.
Andrew the second speaker of the negative team argues that since a person with the closest possible genetic make-up to a homosexual man is more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual, the cause must be found in the genes. Simon LeVay did reveal to us that anatomy is the key to understanding the difference in sexual orientation.
As the hypothalamus is directly linked to the sexual drive and function of all humans, how is it said to be that humans will develop homosexuality orientation through family values and issues?
As we lead into the 3rd speaker of the affirmative team, haylee. She has argued that Biological theorists have found substantial evidence in support of homosexuality as a biological cause in contrast is there any supporting evidence through sufficient research that the negative team has proven? I Believe not. As wen refer back to the case of the twins she has verified that 50% that his twin would also be homosexual

• family values and issues influence homosexuality,
• that men either conform to homosexuality or don jaunism ( he tries to find a wife like his mother but cant so he turns to homosexuality)
• homosexuality comes from the failure to resolve the oedipal complex


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: