Perhaps this analogy can put things more in perspective. Another disorder is the compulsion to drink alcohol, which is present in variable degrees from person to person. An alcoholic, and especially someone who admits to being an alcoholic when asked, would not be admitted to a seminary because of the potential consequences of a lapse in self-control. If homosexuality can be viewed in the same way, it is easy to see the logic behind the policy, especially since the implementation of the policy would involve direct questioning of seminary applicants along these lines. As a former alcohol-abuse counselor, I was trained to regard self-reported alcohol-abuse as merely one-third of actual abuse on the part of the client. For example, if drinking three beers a week was admitted, one would estimate the actual amount to be nine. Therefore, open admission of homosexuality might be considered more than a benign statement of self-identity, if this analogy holds. But that’s just the problem: is this an appropriate analogy?
