He didn’t compare gays to alcoholics. He compared one condition with a known genetic element (alcoholism) to another condition that advocates keep insisting must have a genetic element (homosexuality).
RE: advocates keep insisting must have a genetic element (homosexuality).
Let’s say it has a genetic element ( for arguments sake ), what follows? We should not celebrate it?
If Pedophilia has a genetic element, should we celebrate it too?
This mistake in thinking a naturalistic fallacy. You can’t get an “ought” from an “is.”
Even if homosexuality is natural, it doesn’t prove it OUGHT to be. You can replace homosexuality with Pedophilia or Alcoholism and the argument would be the same.
And scientists who are attempting to prove homosexuality is inborn agree.
Harvard geneticist Dean Hamer, himself a homosexual, says, “Biology is amoral; it offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people guided by their values and beliefs can decide what is moral and what is not.”
Simon LeVay, a Harvard trained neuroscientist and also openly gay, concurs: “First, science itself cannot render judgments about human worth or about what constitutes normality or disease. These are value judgments that individuals must make for themselves, while taking scientific findings into account.”
The MORAL issue is an entirely separate issue altogether.
If our country’s MORAL foundation is going to be Judaeo-Christian and we still want to preserve the foundation, then we will say that homosexual acts are wrong and immoral.
If not... well I guess anything goes. One man’s meat becomes another man’s poison and it will all depend on who is in power.