Thomas wrote:I agree. And conversely, the gay community has a political interest in homosexuality being viewed as hereditary, like gender or race. This would make it easier to use existing anti-discrimination laws to enforce their rights. Not opining which side is correct on this question -- just observing that both sides have a political stake in its answer.
This is more than a little naïve, and an example of your appalling ignorance of the nuances of political positions in the United States--appalling because you so frequently comment as though you were well-informed. A great many men and women in the homosexual community in the United States have objected to the contention that it is an hereditary trait on the basis that it can therefore be described as an hereditary disease, an obsessional mental illness. Those who take that point of view contend that their sexuality is still something which is both normal, and beyond their choice, being a product of environment and nuture. Such statements certainly have a political provenance--many of the more exteme statements include a claim that there is a hunt for "the gay gene" so that "breeders" can practice eugenics, and abort a fetus identified as having a "gay gene." The militant also point out that an identification of a "gay" genetic marker could be used by corporations in much the same way it is alleged that corporations will use other genetic information to deny employment based on a propensity for a genetic medical condition.
The homosexual community in the Columbus, Ohio area is large, and many of them are militant about homosexual rights and living conditions. It can provide an eye-opening education to get to know the community. When a dichotomous, black-white statement about politics looks like the simple explanation, it is almost always wrong. The responses of members of the homosexual community to the contention that homosexuality is an inherent trait are as diverse and differing as one would expect the response to a politically-charged issue to be in the larger community.
**********************
Neologist writes:
Quote:Funny. I can [i.e., accept the premise that anyone is born a homosexual]. I also recognize the full meaning of the term Hobson's choice.
Are there any who would recommend homosexuality as a lifestyle knowing the medical and psychological cost?
But having stated that he can accept the premise, he refers to the "lifestyle" in his very next paragraph, and implies a universal medical and psychological "cost" (the implication residing in the lack of reference to exceptions). Whereas i don't contend that i can prove the contrary, without proof from Neo to the effect that there is a universal medical and psychological "cost," there is no reason for me to accept the contention.
**************************
For the record, i neither know nor care whether or not homosexuality arises from an immutable genetic cause. One needn't refer to genetics to determine whether or not homosexuals should be treated as any other citizen, nor to the morality of a narrow religious view--it is sufficient to have a sense of justice and to apply the enshrined premise in the United States that all citizens are equal.
