[Houghton M.]

Please. Santorum and other Catholics say that the acts are sinful but the unchosen orientation is not sinful.

When you lump both together under “homosexuality” you make the conservative defense harder. The best evidence (from NARTH) suggests that the causes of the orientation are largely developmental and not freely chosen. Acting upon the urge is freely chosen and therefore sinful.

Gays hate us even for saying that the orientation is disordered but not sinful, not to mention for saying the acts are sinful When you put words in Santorum’s mouth to the effect that the orientation itself is sinful, you unnecessarily undermine our cause.

[throwback]

I refer to homosexuality the same way I would refer to lust in my own case. Unless I submit to it in my own thought or deed, I'm not committing a sin. I take it as a given that if something isn't acted out or even thought of for that matter it can't be a sin committed by an individual because it doesn't exist. This argument that Christians hate the sin, but love the sinner never gets any traction in the pro-homosexual community because they start with the notion that they aren't conceived in sin, so any natural behavior is good. They don't buy a basic premise of Christianity, so you'll never win any friends with that argument, but good luck. I don't believe that I am putting any words in Santorum’s mouth, but you seem to be putting them in mine.