Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: elfman2
Thousand of people no longer suffer from the alcoholism "syndrome", but there's plenty of evidence to show that there's a genetic predisposition. Intelligence, athleticism, and all kinds of personality and aptitudes are somewhat genetic. It's just folk wisdom. But you're so certain that the predisposition to homosexuality is different.

Actually, presuming that there might be a genetic predisposition, I am claiming that a genetic predisposition to SAD should be treated exactly the same. We aren't required to "tolerate" alcoholics, we are required to help them to seek treatment. Even things like a hot temper may be genetically predisposed. I certainly have some anecdotal evidence to support that. Obesity? Cancer? Do we just tell people, "It's in your genes so we're not going to do anything."?

If SAD is a birth defect, as you suggest, let's stop tolerating it and start helping SADs get the help they need. This includes not giving them a hiding place in the priesthood.

Shalom.

392 posted on 04/25/2002 7:57:13 AM PDT by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies ]


To: ArGee
" Actually, presuming that there might be a genetic predisposition, I am claiming that a genetic predisposition to SAD should be treated exactly the same. We aren't required to "tolerate" alcoholics, we are required to help them to seek treatment."

Principled conservative would agree that we shouldn't be "required" to do anything to them, but if people choose to promote, fund or seek treatment, more power to them. I don't know the sexual redirection success rate, but I assume it begins with the best candidates. I've always figured that the entire population is on some kind of curve regarding their sexuality. Many, probably even most, wouldn't choose to engage in homosexuality under any conditions, many would be tempted at some time in their lives under the right wrong circumstances, and on and on until there's a tiny group that wouldn't enjoy heterosexual sex under any conditions.

Several times here I've asked if anyone would be enthusiastic about having their daughter marry and start a family with a "reforming" homosexual. At the very least, I think they would have two strikes against them. Why would a good woman choose that kind of man with all the risks involved? So with that in mind, homosexuals must realize that they're going to have a hard time finding women up their standards (i.e equal intellect, personality, wealth, education, attractiveness, etc…). So some of them must recognize that the alternatives are to have a man on their level, a woman below their level or to be celibate. And being that homosexuals tend to be hypersexed anyway, the first option's going to have a big advantage.

I don't have a problem with the Church expelling homosexuals. It's their organization, and they have a right to set the standards. I simply don't like them blaming anyone but themselves for creating the circumstances that attracts so many and then gives them solitary access to boys.

393 posted on 04/25/2002 12:17:08 PM PDT by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson