Quote:Your position is that if lgbt is a genetic anomaly it should be accepted. 

That naturally denotes the question if all conditions based on genetic anomaly should be accepted and untreated namely cancer leukemia lymphoma cleft ballot deformed limbs, certain forms of mental illness etc   

 

If its genetic then its positive roght?

 

My position is that I believe LGBT people should be accepted.  Period. 

 

I believe the cause for being LGBT is (and always has been) tied to a person's biological makeup.  I believe throughout recorded history roughly 8% of the human population has self-identified as LGBT, regardless of whether or not they attempted to hide in a heteronormal lifestyle due to familial or societal pressures.  I do not believe that being LGBT is a mental disorder or a choice.

 

Biologists explain that during development chromosomes are subject to chemical changes which can turn genes on or off.  They call these changes epi-marks which can be carried for a lifetime.  Most epi-marks are erased when eggs and sperm are produced so new fetuses can start with a blank slate.  However, sometimes these epi-marks get passed to the next generation.  Unerased epi-marks may lead to the fetus being LGBT when passed from father to daughter or mother to son.  Inherited epi-marks influence a fetus's sensitivity to testosterone in the womb and might "masculinize" brains for girls or "femininize" brains for boys.  This study explains it in far greater detail than I could do justice.

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/6681...b_contents

 

It's about the fifth link of it's type I have posted in this thread which nobody has directly challenged.  If you disagree with this explanation, tell me what you think is the more likely explanation and why.

 

I love your use of the word "naturally" here.  As if this it the natural question on everyone's mind.  Oh...  WAIT!!! If it's a naturally denoted question, how do I know if it's right or moral?  Just because YOU call this question natural doesn't mean it should be accepted.

 

Your argument is that all genetic anomalies are not good.  Hard to argue when you throw leukemia in the mix.  But what are you saying here? Should a baby born with cancer be accepted?  How unsympathetic are you that you wouldn't accept a kid born with cancer?  Or are you saying I should equate being born LGBT to be as feared and reviled as being born with cerebral palsy?  Where do you draw the line? Albinos?  Being born color blind? Dwarfism? Being born a redhead is still okay, right?  What if..  and this is a stretch..  being born LGBT is not the same as being born with [BAD WORD REMOVED] cancer?!?!

 

Do you spend a whole lot of time living in fear of people with cancer? Do you get off on making jokes about people who are dwarves? Do you feel I should have the right to discriminate against albinos because of my religion?  If you found out your kid was playing with a child who had red hair, would you tell them they couldn't be friends?  Do you feel we should make laws to keep color blind people from marrying?  Do you get uncomfortable being around autistic people? Do you sometimes wish people with Down Syndrome wouldn't be so in your face about it?

 

Accepting the idea that LGBT could be biological, doesn't mean you HAVE TO think it's good or right.  But I can see where accepting the biological explanation could call your morality into question.  If you accept the premise that these people could simply be born that way..  maybe knowing all along, maybe having an idea when they are young, but only really putting two and two together when they start to develop hormonally, maybe not being sure and only realizing it after a failed attempt at a straight marriage or family..  but IF you can accept the premise that LGBT people are just genetically wired that way, what does it say about you that you cannot accept them as they are?  

 

After all..  you don't discriminate against, ridicule, demonize or shun people born with ANY other genetic anomaly. 

---