Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (793)	9/7/1999 2:59:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

Because in my view this is not a choice that someone makes - to be gay. The only choice they are making is whether to publicly acknowledge it. Well, no. Even assuming you are correct, that being gay is a genetic trait and not a choice, people make a choice how to respond to this trait. Geneticists are finding more and more traits for various characteristics--risk taking, propensity for violence, etc. From what I read, these are markers that make it more likely that a person will have these characteristics, but the final choice of how to behave or respond is still with the individual. For example, a person with a high genetic proclivity toward risk taking can still make a conscious choice to live a low-risk life -- simply not to engage in high risk activities despite a genetic tendency toward those activities. (In this way behavioral genetic tendencies are different from such genetic traits as race, which are external facts not involving any behavioral choices. A Native American can decide all they want not to act like a Native American, but they are still Native American.) The heart of your argument is that if a tendency is genetically based, it is prejudice to object to people behaving in accord with that tendency. The problem I see is when we find, as I think we will, genetic tendencies not only to innocent or positive traits but also to tendencies which society abhors, such as gender abuse, beastiality, child abuse, and even racism itself. If someone has a genetic market for child abuse do we say that we can't punish them for being child abusers? Or do we say "they may have that marker, but we expect them to overcome that tendency and not abuse children, and if they follow their genetic tendency and abuse children we will throw them in jail, whether or not their actions are genetically based"? IMO, the only responsible course society can take is the latter. I am NOT, though I will surely be accused of it by those who are unable to or choose not to discuss ideas honestly, equating homosexuality with child abuse. What I AM saying is that we cannot accept a simple argument that if a characteristic is genetically based therefore we must not be prejudiced against people who behave in accordance with that characteristic. Rather, I think we must look at the characteristic itself and say "is this characteristic one which society can accept people behaving in accordance with, or is it one which society must demand that people not behave in accordance with, and about which they must resist or deny their genetic proclivities." From what you say, I assume that given the need to make such a choice, you would put homosexuality in the first category. Which is fine. But I think you also have to accept that people who put it in the latter category are entitled to put forward their opinions and beliefs without being accused of prejudice similar to racism. Unless you are prepared at some point in the future to accept that your opposition to genetically-based child abuse or gender abuse or such is also prejudice similar to racism rather than responsible societal involvement.