After writing letters for the Daily for the past three years on homosexuality, it was finally nice to read Dominic Ferraro’s article supporting what I have been saying all this time.

“I believe, as a homosexual male, that a person’s sexual identity, although somewhat determined by surroundings, is largely determined genetically.”

To maybe think of this in different terms, back around the 1950s, DDT was used in farming, and people were exposed to it. Later, it was directly linked to cause pancreatic cancer “in some people” and was outlawed in the United States.

The parallel? Some people were exposed to DDT, but not everyone developed pancreatic cancer. It all depended on their genetics and the length of the exposure.

People who actually developed cancer did nothing wrong, nor was it a choice.

The difference between cancer and homosexuality is how we view the outcome. In cancer, we try to determine causes to prevent cancer and find possible cures for those who developed cancer.

In homosexuality, we blame the person instead of the surroundings he or she had no control over, or tell them there is no cure and talk them into accepting the outcome.

What happens if we have the ability to change the surroundings? What happens if there is a cure, but we are unwilling to look for it and would rather pass laws instead?

Someone long ago had the realization people with learning disabilities could learn — and as a person with a learning disability, we have been succeeding at learning ever since.

What if homosexuals can develop heterosexual abilities and succeed at traditional marriages? What if homosexuals have been succeeding all these years and we just don’t realize it because we are only hearing from those who haven’t succeeded, or haven’t tried?

Nancy Suby-Bohn

Senior

Civil Engineering