Calling the orientation a disorder will, of course, be denounced as hate speech by the gay activists. I expect someday to go to prison for calling it a disorder.
When I urge my Evangelical brothers to distinguish between disordered but unchosen orientation and chosen and immoral acts, I do not fool myself into thinking that that will get us off the hook with the gays. It won’t.
But the distinction accords with the best psycho-social studies of the matter—done by NARTH—Christian, mostly but not all Catholic—researchers who have paid dearly for sticking up for the truth. They continue to deal with the orientation as a serious and unnatural disorder but not as freely chosen behavior. They are ostracized and persecuted for it. But their research supports making the distinction.
Not to make the distinction renders one’s arguments utterly indefensible. Making the distinction accords with the truth and with the science and with decent theology: for something to be sinful it has to be freely chosen.
Now, the 14-year-old hot shot might have a partial point in the case of teenagers who do not actually have an induced, unchosen same-sex orientation but are manipulated into thinking they do. There might be an element of choice there. But even in those cases, they aren’t really free actors but have been lied to and manipulated by the activists.
Yes, I agree. NARTH, though, has had no better luck on YouTube or Facebook than the boy. Science itself cannot stand up to this agenda, socially.
I think homosexual behavior, especially in excess, could be considered socially as smoking has (they have had NO problems overriding rights to liberty in that venue!). Or drug or alcohol abuse. By thundering about hell, it makes people even more defensive. But we have gone to the point where even to call it a bad habit is punishable.
I do not believe God judges anyone adapting to a disorder: It is the vast cultural agenda, driven by forces not even gay , which is the abomination.