Hey hey crash, and everyone else here. You mentioned:
quote:
You're really digging, here, when it's simpler to concede the truth - homosexuality has a very strong genetic component, as strong as any other hereditary behavior, like alcoholism.
Out of curiosity, do you think that those naturally predisposed to alcoholism should live a life characterized by the disorder? Should they accept their genetic component and become dependent on alcohol because it feels good, generally leading to "physical and psychological harm and impaired social and vocational functioning?" Heh, I hate it when people quote dictionaries. I apologize, but the definition phrases it better than I would.
I'm sure we can all agree that the behavior of an alcoholic is not beneficial, notably to himself but also to loved ones and to society at large. I have offered as much support as I know how to my alcoholic friends over the years in order for them to get the help they need to beat the addiction. Much of the time the addiction is never gone but only suppressed by constant support, such as that provided by AA, which is certainly a life-long endeavor. In the severe cases (which always include the "alcohol gene"), I have rarely known someone who can quit cold turkey and never face a strong addiction again. In fact, in my experience, the few times this is possible are accompanied by acceptance of God into one's life (heh, much like our great president).
My only point is that even though we accept the fact that alcoholism is genetic, should we condone it as a beneficial lifestyle? I don't believe so. How are programs like Exodus International different than Alcoholics Anonymous?
I imagine most would answer that the homosexual lifestyle doesn't hurt anyone. That is certainly up for debate, and would be answered with endless tirades involving disease, preying, and the unweaving of moral fabrics. Hehe, I won't go there, so I just pose my question about accepting genetic dispositions "as is."
Take care,
Jake