Thursday, March 5, 2015

Food for Thought 20150305

I was scanning news headlines, and came across one that seemed interesting enough for me to want to share it with you: Ben Carson Apologizes for Saying Being Gay is a Choice. Now, I have to admit that I have not followed this story from the beginning, so I will not say that I fully understand the gravity of the situation, so I advise everyone that reads this, to do with a grain of salt.


To my understanding, the topic of discussion is regarding sexual orientation, and the ability to choose, or the lack of ability to choose which orientation is followed. I have my opinion on whether or not people can choose who they are, as well as having my own opinion as to whether or not orientation is a choice in itself (I believe both subjects are separate, though can be argued they are one and the same). I am not here to discuss my opinion, but to present to everyone a question that, hopefully, will garner some thought, and allow people to contemplate the vastness of ramifications, of the answers which they themselves may come up with.


So enough with the mystification, and on to the meat of the subject. My question is simple:

If people can argue that they have no choice in deciding whether or not they are homo-sexually oriented, would it be a fair argument to say that murderers, thieves, and other lawbreakers are unable to make the decision to be law-abiding citizens, and that their choice to act upon those urges are absolved from law?

I just want to make sure that it is clear to all who read this, that I am not speaking against, or advocating for homosexuality, nor criminal actions. I am simply bringing focus to urges, or actions some say they have no choice in controlling. This is a focus on the ability to choose, or the lack thereof. If one person, or a group of people claim to NOT have the ABILITY to CHOOSE what their behaviors are, and we allow for the absolution of actions resulting from the declaration of the inability to refrain from such actions, Wouldn't we have to make a ruling across the board for the same claim for EVERYONE who makes such a claim?