The identity argument does not quite make sense to me. I suppose you are saying that a male is acting like a female when engaging in homosexual sex, or something like that. Does that mean that the dominant partner is okay, only the "nellie" is not? Or is it more subtle: because our parents were heterosexual, we have to be heterosexual? But what about those fellows who are so closeted they raise families? Does that mean that their offspring have special permission to be gay? I am really not sure what you think you are asserting. As it stands, I do not see it as having any force as a natural law argument enjoining any particular way of handling the issue.
On the question of immutability, I don't stake anything on the origin. It may be entirely psychological. My only point is that there is no reliable cure, and that most homosexuals seem to have an uncontrollable attraction to the same sex. I remember a congressman, Bauman, I believe, from Maryland, who was very conservative, with what appeared to be a lovely family. It turned out that he would go through episodes of binge drinking where he would let loose the proclivities towards young men that were always there, but barely suppressed, until finally his indiscretions caught up with him. I got the distinct impression he was not merely a hypocrite, but was genuinely haunted by his desires........ |
