Republican presidential contender needs a lesson in metaphysics; man's sexual orientation can't be chosen, only acted on

A recent contender for the Republican Party’s nomination as a presidential candidate made a remark about how he believes that people choose their sexual orientation.
Why someone’s view on where sexual orientation comes from is relevant to running for president, I don’t know.
Regardless, his ignorance was made apparent and I hope that the American people have enough sense to not vote for him.
The opinion expressed by this candidate seems to echo the view of most, if not all, social conservatives.
It would seem, then, that social conservatives need a lesson in metaphysics, specifically in the area of determinism.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that asks the question “what is real?” and the topic of determinism deals with whether or not there are certain conditions that determine the way in which events transpire.
Simply put, determinism asserts that we are slaves to our circumstances.
Related to determinism is the issue of free will, or rather whether or not we are completely bound to our conditions with regards to our ability to make choices.
There are different schools of thought regarding determinism and free will.
Some believe that our circumstances have been predetermined, but that that does not necessarily rob us of our free will.
This view is called compatibilism because it asserts that free will is compatible with determinism.
Contrarily, incompatibilism holds that free will and determinism cannot coexist.
This can mean that either determinism is true and free will doesn’t exist, determinism is false and free will does exist, or the more farfetched idea that determinism is false and that free will still doesn’t exist.
Concerning sexual orientation, a compatibilist would believe that one doesn’t choose his orientation but he does choose whether or not to act on it.
One doesn’t have control over his conditions, which in this case would be the sex to which is he is attracted.
He does, however, have the choice whether or not to pursue a partner.
Analogously, one doesn’t choose what his favorite flavor of ice cream is, but he is certain of what he likes.
One does have the choice whether he will go to the ice cream parlor to get some of his favorite flavor or if he will just stay in his house and mope because he has no ice cream.
An incompatibilist, like the aforementioned political candidate, would believe that one is not inherently attracted to one sex but that he chooses which he wants to pursue.
Taking this theory to its logical conclusion means that this candidate wakes up every morning and decides to be heterosexual.
An incompatibilist would believe that one chooses which flavor of ice cream he likes best rather than letting his taste buds tell him which tastes best.
If incompatibilism were true, one could arguably choose that sewage-flavored ice cream tastes good.
A man who holds a view as asinine as believing people can choose their sexual orientation should be considered intellectually unfit for political office.
What is worse is that the only reason he would hold such a belief is that he is homophobic, and the only reason this belief would come up in conversations preceding his potential nomination is if he intends to legislate morality from Washington.
This type of gross disregard for the 10th Amendment to the Constitution as well as the American ideal of freedom of conscience paints this candidate as anti-American and borderline fascist.
It is my hope that he will drop out of the race and just stick to running mediocre pizza restaurants.

Comments and questions about this column can be sent to [email protected]