Conceptual consequences

Nature or nurture? - The Boston Globe
Well, it turns out that the more you believe homosexuality is innate, the more accepting you are of gay rights. A full 79 percent of people who think human beings are born with a sexual orientation support gay rights, including civil unions or marriage equality. But only 22 percent of those who believe homosexuality is a choice agree.

The same line can be found in the religious world between those who regard homosexuality as a (bad) choice and those who see it as a (biological) trait. The most conservative Protestant churches that talk about the homosexual ''lifestyle" prohibit gay ministers. Religious liberals who see sexual orientation as an inborn trait, are more open to gays in the pulpit.

All and all, Americans seem reluctant to condemn people for who they simply are.

What interests me here is not homosexuality (although I'm about to write a Czech article promoting gay marriage) but the idea that certain positions or views we hold determine others. This looks to be a valid position in this case but we must beware of blanket conceptual determinism which does not hold as a rule. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is built precisely around these assumptions which is the reason (why in my view) it fails to offer an honest look at individual instances of discourse. Lakoff's Moral Politics offers some of the mechanisms which might provide a lens to view these conceptual causalities but even that needs to be treated with caution.