[ArGee]

I don't think most people really WANT to know the truth about the etiology of sexual orientation.

You may be correct here. Of far greater importance is what do we do with "sexual orientation," or, as would be more properly called, "sexual preference." You could show beyond the shadow of a doubt that a hot temper is entirely inbred, and we would still never excuse someone becoming violent because their temper flared.

Similarly, I believe homosexual behavior is pathological from a social point of view. (We will know for sure when it is too late based on the way things are going.) But a sexually healthy society would encourage those with a "homosexual orientation" to change, as many ex-gays have successfully done, for its own protection. It would do so regardless of whether the cause were known to be genetic or not.

Shalom.

[Kahonek]

"Of far greater importance is what do we do with 'sexual orientation,' or, as would be more properly called, 'sexual preference.'"

I agree with you on this, although I prefer the term "sexual orientation" for multiple reasons. I don't think the etiology issue is very informative when it comes to the morality issue.

"You could show beyond the shadow of a doubt that a hot temper is entirely inbred, and we would still never excuse someone becoming violent because their temper flared."

Exactly -- and even if you could show beyond the shadow of a doubt that someone's religion is entirely a matter of personal choice, we should still not condone hostile actions toward Christians, solely on the grounds that they CHOSE or LEARNED to be Christian. Etiology is uninformative on morality.

"But a sexually healthy society would encourage those with a "homosexual orientation" to change, as many ex-gays have successfully done, for its own protection. It would do so regardless of whether the cause were known to be genetic or not."

The morality issue is not easily addressed by science. It is also possible to argue, as some do, that society should encourage those with a homosexual orientation to embrace their sexuality and strive toward a stable, monogamous relationship based on mutual love and respect, as many gays have successfully done, for its own protection. It could do so regardless of whether the cause were known to be genetic or not.

Unfortunately, pathology is not an exact science. We've got no clear, unambiguous rules for defining what's a disease and what's not (although there are clear examples on either side, the boundary is fuzzy -- ask any pathologist). The only way to define the ambiguities is with a vote. The APA voted in 1973, the Supreme Court voted in 2003, and there will be plenty of votes (going both ways) in the future...