Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

From the surface, it seems to me that actually, this ISN'T true (in the US at least). Things that we did, but we did "without choice" are punished less harshly, and focused more on treatment, than things which we do by choice. For example, premeditated murder vs. heat-of-the moment vs. temporary insanity vs. personality disorder leading to murder.Seems to me we generally "blame" people less for what "happens to them" (i.e. things they couldn't "help" due to genetic predisposition or unavoidable catastrophe). People who do things because they're dumb, uneducated, weak-willed--the things we find that make up a "person"--are not punished.I'm not saying it's wrong or right (and my abandoned post that I promised to write on free-will was centered on the right/wrong issue here), but I'm saying that, at least in American culture, it seems that people think this way.Ben(disclaimer: I actually "know" nothing about the legal system. I'm completely a lay person with no personal experience in law. So I'm willing to listen and learn if I'm way off the mark.)

Weird. Because you said in your post was, So instead of making a statement about a legal position, you're stating your personal thoughts on it? I guess what you're saying is you wanted to say "Rights and freedoms SHOULD not be based on genetic disposition"?--If that's the case... I don't see how individual opinions about how policy should be made are relevant. If we're in general using a policy that you disagree with, then there's no reason for you to argue specifically on this thread. You could fight any number of fights (including disputing how we handle criminals whose behavior was the same but the "cause" we deem as different, splitting on "choice"), and you'll be fighting at a purely philosophical level.Seems to me the question here is on the practical level. In the US there's a legal system, it has some basic premises that are accepted. In the practical short-term, those premises don't change; in fact it's not just the legal system, but really the perspective of the culture that would need to be changed. So it seems to me you're advocating a position that isn't possible given the current system.--If we accommodate people who become handicapped (which we generally consider not to be their fault), then we should accommodate people who are gay. So I think Tal's analysis is right.And I don't think we SHOULD accommodate people who choose to be a certain way. Whether being overweight or not is a choice is debatable, and I think as we believe more and more obesity is controlled by genetic factors, we feel more accepting and accommodating. But for example, we don't provide seating that fits the proper size of those who are overweight. We generally get angry when we realize our insurance premiums get increased due to obesity.Yet we do accommodate those with "legitimate" causes to immobility, such as paralysis, cereberal paulsy, etc.--It's all about perception of choice and our view of what a "person" is. And that's exactly how it hinges on our perspective of personhood and free will. (And now I think I can convince you that "free will" is not good; I'll go search for the other thread when I come home).But I think I'm harping on a tangential point. I did want to at least address your response. And sorry for the weak post; I'm in a rush to get out of here. But if I don't post before leaving, I'll probably just drop it (like usual).Ben