I can't comment on the particular study being debated, but I think that conservatives (like me) may be begging the question when we argue strenuously against a biological basis for homosexuality. We should concede there may be -- may be, not is - a biological basis for homosexuality, and then we should add, "So what?" There may be a genetic basis for alcoholism, but no (sane) person is arguing that alcoholics should be allowed to show up at work drunk. My personal opinion is that homosexuality is like obesity: there may be a biological predisposition (weak or strong), that was caused by a genetic abnormality or a hormonal surge that went awry in the womb; and then environmental factors may play a part, too. In any case, one may think homosexuality is 100% biological, 100% environmental, or some combo of both, yet still maintain that sexual behavior is verboten.
I think a difference should be noted. Eye and height color may be genetically caused with not much that can be done with it; however, homosexuality may have a genetic predisposition, but that does not mean one's genes mandate (no pun intended) that one be a homosexual.
posted on 07/10/2006 11:35:14 AM PDT
We agree: perhaps one's sexual inclinations may be influenced of dictated by biology, but your ACTIONS are freely chosen.
posted on 07/10/2006 11:47:34 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson