biology equaling morality
There are two ways of looking at biology in defense of homosexuality, innate trait of animalia and innate trait of homo sapiens.
I dismiss the Animalia Theory out of hand. Animals can teach us about ourselves and the study of animal life has benefited mankind greatly.* In no way, however, should animal behaviors be grafted onto mankind. Tigers kill their young; that doesn’t justify any human behaviors.
The Innate Trait Theory carries a little more credibility. Many people believe that if it can be proven that homosexuality is genetically-based to some extent that homosexuals must be accepted as normal humans. Red hair, ambidextrousness, and homosexuality would each be genetic minorities but human nonetheless.
That only works to a point, however. Man is master of his own destiny. Proving that someone has a propensity to steal does not justify theft. Yes, there will probably be proof that theft is genetically motivated. Everything gets proven eventually once researchers with the right agenda come along.
Society will never accept that anti-social behavior is excusable because of genetics. So what is the true purpose of such findings? To screen and pre-jail the kleptomaniacs? Or to screen a fetus for undesirable traits and eliminate the unborn riffraff? Which is more scary?
The one, true path to acceptance is via the hearts of the members of society at large. We’re everywhere and maybe the straight folks should realize we don’t threaten society. We’ll have to tell them, of course. One by one. One at a time. “We’ve known each other for a long time and I believe I am a good man. You should know I’m gay. I always have been and it hurts when you belittle gays like that.”
Bold advice coming from a closet-case like myself, I know. So go ahead, you first.
*Scientists in England proved that ducks of the same species have regionalized accents. Hooray for scientists.
A few weeks ago I read an opinion piece in a major, weekly news magazine (probably Time or Newsweek) in which the homosexual columnist opined, “A hormone patch that prevented homosexuality in fetuses might not be a bad idea. It means that homosexual children would be raised by mothers that, at the very least, didn’t seek to prevent their existence.”
If anyone knows where that article is, please, let me know. Thank you!