I agree with you. Predisposition cause(s) unknown may not be a choice in any or all cases; however, activity always is. In general, civil laws should be and have always been rationally premised in accomodating or sanctioning activities -not feelings...
The left argues feelings -which is why the left sponsors and pushes this type of "research" --WHICH as you and I both agree really is irrelevant to the legal question(s)...
posted on 07/10/2006 12:07:33 PM PDT
I also look at homosexuality as an "orientation", similar to other ways people use to get aroused. Just because a specific behavior arouses a person, does not mean they should be free to pursue that behavior. On a somewhat reasonable level there is porn. If a man is married, and exploring this behavior arouses him, should he have a right to pursue it, even if it hurts his wife? Maybe that activity is "required" for him to get aroused. Does that make it right?
What about voyeurism?? Possibly there are people who enjoy and are drawn to that, does that make it a right?
Of course not, in both cases, but once introduced to either situation, if a person finds it difficult to explore their sex life without either, it can be very difficult to "abstain", or so I am told. No way does that give them a "right" to pursue either, at the risk or detriment of others.
There are other proclivities even more extreme, but we won't go into those.
posted on 07/10/2006 1:36:02 PM PDT
(PC is the huge rock, behind which lies hide!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson