Quote:
Originally posted by amycat412
I'm just rambling...
|
I disagree - in fact, according to present evidence about genetics and gene expression, you might just be on the right track.
It turns out, there is no real "nature v. nurture" argument for many things. It's actually "nature WITH nurture" . . . look at genes for alcoholism. These don't mean that the person with said genes is alcoholic from birth - in fact far from it. It means that there is a genetic predisposition for alcoholism - not all alcoholics have the gene, and not all with the gene will become alcoholic.
Environmental "triggers" are needed to set off genetic predispositions.
Now, sexual preference is a far different issue, most likely - there's no direct link found between sexual preference and any sort of genetic predisposition.
However, I still personally feel that, since attraction is an unexplainable phenomenon that has a definite physical component as well as a mental one, you can most likely draw parallels between it and other such 'inherited' traits - ie people don't choose to be gay, that's who they are, and this is based on many factors, some of which may have varying degrees of environmental influence. I realize this is extremely vague, but with complex topics such as this it pays to follow Occum's Razor when creating theses.
Anyway - When you look at it from this standpoint, not only does it eliminate any sort of possibility of bias against people based on sexual preference, it also removes any sort of 'mystique' or misunderstanding behind homosexuality - it exists, and it is simply a trait people possess just like any other, not something that defines a person.