I think he's right in the sense that tying the acceptance of a behavior solely to its innate nature creates problems when it comes to protecting both the behavior and the people who do that.
The notion of innate brings with it the notion of "cure". I don't know if you like the xmen movies, but in the second one, they have a cure for mutants. So once that cure is available,there's less desire on the part of the rest of the public to tolerate mutants and the pressure on said mutants to get cured is high. And I've heard a similar argument made of trans. They're born that way, sure, but we should cure them.
But the reverse is true as well. Since legitimacy hinges on innateness a single study can undo everything. What happens if you can trace gayness to something else, say a poor relationship with parents, or bullying, or something like that? Do gays suddenly go back to square zero and become diseased misfits? What has changed other than the origin of the behavior? It doesn't suddenly become harmful, it doesn't somehow become easier to spread, or less consensual.
It isn't even our default method of determining what is and isn't legal in most other cases. No one claimed a genetic cause for Christianity or conservative politics or entertainment choices. I've never heard someone defend hip hop or Star Trek by saying that they're genetically predisposed to liking those things. They're legit because people do them and it is harmless to the society at large. That should be the criteria for adult behavior being acceptable.
I think he's right in the sense that tying the acceptance of a behavior solely to its innate nature creates problems when it comes to protecting both the behavior and the people who do that.
The notion of innate brings with it the notion of "cure". I don't know if you like the xmen movies, but in the second one, they have a cure for mutants. So once that cure is available,there's less desire on the part of the rest of the public to tolerate mutants and the pressure on said mutants to get cured is high. And I've heard a similar argument made of trans. They're born that way, sure, but we should cure them.
But the reverse is true as well. Since legitimacy hinges on innateness a single study can undo everything. What happens if you can trace gayness to something else, say a poor relationship with parents, or bullying, or something like that? Do gays suddenly go back to square zero and become diseased misfits? What has changed other than the origin of the behavior? It doesn't suddenly become harmful, it doesn't somehow become easier to spread, or less consensual.
It isn't even our default method of determining what is and isn't legal in most other cases. No one claimed a genetic cause for Christianity or conservative politics or entertainment choices. I've never heard someone defend hip hop or Star Trek by saying that they're genetically predisposed to liking those things. They're legit because people do them and it is harmless to the society at large. That should be the criteria for adult behavior being acceptable.