Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
In truth, on a practical level, your implied criticism of my point is spot on. Regardless of the research, most folks would not change their viewpoint and would continue to revel in their own ill-informed opinions. So the research results would accomplish little at all and we'd still be stuck in this same dynamic.
It's not even that. Having a genetic predisposition to something still doesn't force others to approve of your behavior. What if arsonists were found to be born with that tendency? Would anyone think less of their behavior?

Furthermore, an innate instead of acquired trait would raise further questions- can it be screened for? Can it be cured? I really don't see how it would settle any part of the debate.

------
On the subject of the ruling- the more of it I read, the dumber I feel like it's making me. The opinion reads like it was written by the plaintiff. The judge ticks off an entire laundry list of "facts" that have no bearing on the decision and tries to use them to find in favor. Homosexuals can lover each other, they can raise children... who cares? The issue he was supposed to decide is whether or not Prop8 violates the US Constitution. Much of the ruling reads like it's more about justifying gay marriage than ruling on the constitutionality. It'd make more sense if he was trying to decide a case where the plaintiff was challenging a ruling allowing gay marriage, but that's not the case before him. Considering that he'd originally wanted to air the whole proceeding on YouTube, it really sounds like he was more interested in a show trial than a fair hearing of both sides.