Okay, I think there's been some confusion on my points about responsibility.
Opeth's original post here stated 'However, that doesn't mean they should be chastised or deemed to be evil because they did not choose to be born that way.'
I took this to mean "It's not their fault they're gay- they couldn't help it, they were born that way." Opeth tells me that he means they can't help it that homosexuality is an 'abnormality.' (in the strictly common/uncommon sense.) I agree.... but I don't agree that that's what the original statement is saying- Maybe Opeth would phrase it differently if he said it again? I don't know... in my reply to his post, I said:
'I hate, hate, HATE!!!! this rationalization. It's not defending the person, or the nature of their behavior, it's excusing it. Like... "So and so can't help it she's black, she was born that way." Or "You know so and so can't be held accountable for that wrong behavior- they were born that way." '
and he replied
'~ Not the same thing, you are mixing the actions taken by a person or a group of persons with the abnormality of being born homosexual. Being born black is not an abnormality. Being held accountable for one's action, whether white, black, homosexual, etc is logical.'
Okay- here's where the confusion began. I think he thought I meant that the person in question would be absolved of all behaviors/actions because of the 'abnormality' or default excuse- like "Joe hit his mom, but he can't help it because he was born gay." I meant this excuse system to applied only to the behaviors being criticized, like: "Mia can't help it she speaks in eubonics. She was born black." (this begs the question of why eubonics and blackness are such horrible things.) OR "Fred can't help it he kissed another man- he was born gay." (Again, begging the obvious question of why kissing a man is behavior that needs to be rationalized somehow- it can't be guiltless in it's own right.)
My question isn't whether a person stops being responsible for their own actions- it's whether one person has the right to criticize another's actions, and why the people in question have to be defended by getting them off the hook with failsafes like "He couldn't help it" rather than by logic and defense of one person's right to feel romantic and sexual interest to another person of the same sex. After all, logic dictates that if I kiss my boyfriend... then shouldn't Bob be able to kiss his boyfriend?
To put it another way- Ron said:
'At what point, if any, are the actions of the individual no longer the fault of the individual?'
This is not what I'm discussing at all. My issue is more along the lines of:
At what point, if any, are the actions of an individual subject to a)public review and derision b)rationalization of the behavior that causes the derision by those who feel the disdain and c) the denial of the individual to participate in said activities unharrassed by others?
Maybe that helps. And maybe I will start the thread... in philosophy.
Who is John Galt?