SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Carolyn who wrote (78181)10/16/2004 8:38:20 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793860
 
In the end. who cares? What difference does it make? One is what one is. So what?


No, it makes a huge difference to how homosexuality is regarded. If it is biological, whether genetic or not, then people will see that it is unreasonable to expect someone to just "choose" not be homosexual. On the other hand, once homosexuality has at least one clearly identified cause, then people may start to talk about a "treatment" or a "cure" and we will have this discussion all over again. Suppose starting tomorrow you could really take a pill and change your sexual orientation. What would that do to the political question?

There has been a similar development regarding mental illness in the last fifty years. Fifty years ago, a person who had depression was either regarded as sane, in which case they were supposed to just "snap out of it", or they were so bad they were regarded as insane, which was really scary because nobody knew how people went insane or how to fix it, and the insane were just locked away.

Gradually, as we have learned more about the working of the brain, the model has shifted from inexplicable "moods" or "insanity" to the model of brain disease. Conversely, as working anti-depressants have been developed, people are now expected to just take some Prozac or whatever and fix the problem. It ain't always that simple, of course.