01.01.70
In up to date discussions surrounding the "Gay Republican challenges his party's hate" report, I have been surprised to find the idea that a person "does not choose what they are attracted to."
Milieu aside the biological question of homosexual attraction, I have put on my philosopher's hat to this objective, and it seems a dangerous premise.
If a man has lost or stifled the power to choose his attractions, has he not squandered one of the most meaningful things that makes him human?
The things a person loves will set up or break them. If I am attracted to that which is below me, I will stoop to meet it. If I am attracted to that which is my better, I will climb to subsist it. If I do not have some ability to choose my loves and desires, am I not a slave to whatever or whoever chooses for me?
Our justice system does not act on the premise that attraction is outside of one's control. It could not do so and survive. Recently I sat in a Springfield courtroom as a pubescent man was sentenced to jail for stealing X-box games. The judge did not say, "Because you simply acted on your innate attraction to entertainment, you may go home to your console and enjoy." Instead, by sentencing him, the arbiter said, "Because you refused to curb your innate attraction to gaming, and allowed it to show into a dangerous addiction, you will suffer the consequences.
Source: Springfield News-Leader