[Houghton M.]

I
NEVERF
SAID
THE
DISORDER
IS
A
SIN

With you, Scottjewell, I disputed not the orientation is a disorder. We agree it’s a disorder. We disagree about whether it is ever inborn.

I consistently wrote that as a disorder it is not freely chosen. The orientation/disorder is NOT a sin.

Acting on it is a sin, to the degree that the acts are knowingly chosen.

You want to make acting on it not a sin for your category A of inborn disordered. Stipulating that your Category A even exists, I dispute your saying that the acts are not sinful if they arise (for Category A people) from inborn disorder.

I say acts are sins no matter what, if they are freely chosen. (People who have been so lied to, manipulated etc. into believing that it’s Natural may not be capable of entirely free choice anymore).

[scottjewell]

Gasp! I hear you, Houghton. Loud and clear. And I thank you for applauding my sincerity or pity or what have you. Here is what may be the crux of it, encompassing NARTH, Natural Law Theory, and the Culture: 1. A tiny minority might do best to live quiet, low-profile lives as DISABLED/disordered homosexuals. 2. But this would not mean that this ought to be CELEBRATED as a new norm. 3. Ergo, if NARTH were to come out with, "Well, with some of them, we really just do not know WHAT to do", these would be seen as comprising a small DISABLED minority. 4. As sure as the sun rises, kids on college campuses , hearing that they were not embracing and celebrating a new norm, a new equality, but were rather joining a disabled minority, would have a "yeeech" reaction, and drop it like a hot potato. Problem solved, the agenda becomes unpopular....Natural Law Theory makes a come-back.