It means it’s a defect and not “normal”, like they’re trying to shove down our throats.
But we knew that. It’s been theorized for years that prenatal factors may influence homosexuality. I’m not holding my breath for any causation to be proved, but if it were, then ... what? Would mothers be monitored to see if they doing whatever contributed to the causation, or would they be monitored to make sure they didn’t avoid it?
From the linked article;
“. If homosexuality is truly biological, discrimination against gay people is bigotry, plain and simple. But if it’s a birth defect, as Blanchard’s work tacitly suggests, then being gay is something that can—and presumably should—be fixed.
That’s a toxic view, and one that must be abandoned. We might not yet understand the exact biological mechanisms underlying sexual orientation, but we will one day soon. And if, at that point, homosexuality is seen as a disorder, the next step will be a search for a cure. That would be a tragedy—for society and for science. There’s nothing wrong with being gay: You know it; I know it; the Supreme Court knows it. But so long as large swaths of the country believe otherwise—places where homophobic families still ostracize their gay sons and brothers—any research into its biological origins is fraught with peril for the cause of gay rights.”
Exactly. If we're born with other types of defects, we attempt to correct the defect medicine, surgery or whatever it takes.
Doesnt matter whether its a defect or not. They will say we should accept them since they were born that way. Changes nothing. It does raise the matter of preventing it from happening in first place. Thht will get interesting.
>>It means it’s a defect and not “normal”, like they’re trying to shove down our throats.
This is an interesting area where both Christians and thinking Darwinists can come to agreement.