- Last month, the US Supreme Court affirmed the rights of same-sex couples to marry. The decision was a major achievement for a liberation movement that began nearly half a century ago. Throughout the struggle for marriage equality, supporters drew parallels with the oppression of African Americans, be that anti-miscegenation laws or legalised segregation. Yet one stark difference between these civil rights movements has escaped notice.
I've long been of the perspective that arguing about whether sexuality is genetically determined or otherwise involuntary or whether there's an element of choice involved is a bit of a foolish argument to bother with. To say that something is "not my fault" assumes that there's fault to be had.
Sexuality isn't something we should be apologizing for regardless of where it comes from.
The other major issue I see here, something that conforms to a sort of postmodern perspective on truth, is the premise of the headline. It shouldn't matter what the sociological consequences of the truth are. If it's simply not true that sexuality is biologically determined (which is not, by the way, necessarily the same as being genetic) then it doesn't matter if it's a "dangerous" idea or a "safe" idea. The same is true if it is true.
Our focus shouldn't be on looking for an ideologically acceptable answer, it should be on looking for an accurate answer regardless of the political landscape.
That article is pretty terrible to be honest. It mixes up being born gay with being gay being determined by genetics. The actual hypothesis is to do with hormone levels in the womb while developing. So the article doesn't have even a basic understand about the opinion it is disagreeing with.