The homos who want to shut down discussion by claiming that they are offended can take a hike. They are using people’s misplaced guilt and solicitude for their own selfish ends.
The point of comparison is that gayness is like drug addiction, because people are often dissatisfied with both of these desires and seek to change them. One tries to conform himself to an ideal of being the kind of person who does not want to use drugs or is not attracted to men.
Now notice what I am saying: not “who does not use drugs” but “who does not want to use drugs”; not “who is chaste” but “who is not attracted to men.” I am talking about personality not behavior.
An important comment on that thread says:
‘Being a “homosexual” and being a man who has sex with other men are two different things. A man can have sex with other men for money or drugs or some other type of compensation, but not be gay. Alternatively, a man can be gay but have sex with women (perhaps a man who knew he was gay but married a woman for fear of religious persecution, etc.). These are two different concepts and should be treated as such.’
So, being chaste is difficult but probably vastly easier than changing one’s sexuality. A lifestyle is a means to soul-making, but it is not the soul.
The objection is that homosexual attraction cannot be cured, though drug addiction can be. This is a valid point: it seems that Pierpont has failed to cure himself; what makes him think that he can cure others? Thus, it is futile to combat homosexual urges, and one has to accept what he cannot change all the way up to building an identity based on this thing. Perhaps, or perhaps not. But given this distinction, the comparison stands.