Hmmmmm

A co-worker of mine and I were talking yesterday about a very interesting issue. The topic originally started out by us looking at websites of some of the world's smallest apartments.

We both noted that we knew some people who had really made nice places for themselves. Those people were mostly men. Those men were mostly gay. So as it goes, if you every need a cheap interior decorator get a gay friend.

He asked me if I knew about any of the psychology behind why people became gay and I said "no." I had heard some theories, but they all varied.

I sort of visited this issue in a previous post of mine talking about how Al Mohler, a big dude in the Suhthun' Babtis' group believed that being gay was a genetic disposition. He also went as far as to say that there was some kind of antidote that could be given prenatally for the prevention of homosexuality. I don't know if that's true or not, but it does bring up an interesting issue.

Tony Campolo, another outspoken Christian speaker and anthropologist has done a lot of study in this arena. He has come to the conclusion that despite Dr. Mohler's assessment that gay people can't be "cured." Once the switch has been flipped there isn't any going back.

If this could be true for those who are gay, then what could it possibly say about those who are rapists, child molesters, thieves, serial killers? I do not want to insinuate here that homosexuality is on the same level as these other atrocities, but the issue of not being able to change makes for an interesting discussion. What should a society do with those who would harm it?

While I don't believe that homosexuality poses any immediate threat to those who don't otherwise participate in it, I do know that the other aforementioned issue do have a direct threat in the societies where they are practiced.

My simple proposition would be that those who are offenders in the "worse" arenas of public safety should simply be removed from society. Not just jailed, but more practically they should probably be terminated. Keeping them in jail just means that the rest of us tax payers have to keep paying for them. Keeping them in society just means continued threats to our women and children.

Perhaps they are people who have become defective, like a bad hard drive in a computer. They need to be wiped out before the computer can be rebuilt. The major exception here though is that they cannot be "wiped out" to be given a clean slate again, so why keep them around?

Is this the problem with "Big Government?" There is so much to manage that we have lost our sense of local community. It's easy for the bleeding heart liberals to be so compassionate with those that they don't know somewhere else, but what if it hit a little closer to home?