Using the example of a dog that moos like a cow, the Web site borndifferent.com presents a lucid position that being gay is simply a genetic outcome, like being blue-eyed or red-haired:
I had an interesting discussion about this (kindof) with my mom the other day. I was saying that I felt (like a few professional reviewers) X-Men III contained a lot of metaphor for being a gay teenager. I asked a gay friend about that, and he said he felt the sub-plot of Angel (the winged son of the guy who created the "cure" for mutantism) was blatantly about being gay, but that the rest was focused on other comparisons with teenage life.
But to me, it definitely seemed "the cure" in the movie was a commentary on whether you can really cure who you are. I suppose you could argue it also pertained to people who suppress their cultural heritage or personal morals to fit in.
Just thought I'd pass this on. I'll be interested to hear if any of you have thoughts on it. And please, let's not focus on the fact that my dog moos and has humped many, many more of his male colleagues than female. I think we all know Jonas was born different.
1 comment:
..."the cure" in the movie was a commentary on whether you can really cure who you are....
This may someday become a major ethical debate for expecting parents, since it is conceivable that genetics might one day be able to "fix" these "problems". My thought is how much of ones identity is determined by what you are fixing? If you genetically change a baby so that it can function , for example delete a spinal deformity, I would be all for that. But when will our tinkering begin to cross the line of helpful correction and enter the area of eliminating diversity? Hmmm....
Post a Comment