And this is a belief.
I realize than many people want to believe that this could not possibly be a human behavioral choice (even sub-conciously) it is much easier to accept that it is genetic or in-born.
And, if it is genetic or in-born, then it is wrong to, well, say that it is wrong. Much like it would be wrong to say it's wrong to have blue eyes or red hair or freckles or have dark skin or be a certain gender. This very reasoning is what causes supporters of "gay rights" to link themselves with the civil-rights movement.
I have heard all of the arguments before, the two primary ones being:
1. When did you choose to be a heterosexual?
2. Why would someone choose a "lifestyle" that sets themselves up for such hardship?
Both are fallacious arguments and themselves do not offer a proof of the genetic or in-born nature of homosexuality.
First, even if you can prove that someone has never "chosen" to be heterosexual, doesn't prove that someone else has not "chosen" to be homosexual.
Second, people choose to do lots of things that lead to hardship, ridicule and other ill-effects in their lives.
But, for the moment, let's go with this (unproven) assertion. Let's break this down.
1. People are born with certain traits.
2. People engage in certain behaviors.
The general argument is that there are certain things in #2 (let's homosexual behavior) that are unavoidable or uncontrollable due to certain things in #1.
- Is this true?
- Is is a correct assumption about anything else?
- If it is true, is the behavior made "right" by virtue of the fact that it derives from an in-born trait of some kind?
Let's try some examples:
- Violent behaviors
- Sexual predatory behaviors
Let's say that any one of these behaviors derived from some in-born trait. If this is true, would that behavior be "okay"? If so, only for people with that trait?
Now...before anyone gets inflamed...I picked these specific examples exactly because they are behaviors that most people commonly agree to be "wrong".
There are some (many?) that also believe that homosexual behavior is "wrong" also (regardless of any in-born, genetic pre-disposition to it).
We can argue until the cows come home (when is that by the way?) But it all boils down to different beliefs about what is "right" and what is "wrong". Christians (and Jews and Muslims I suspect as well), would say that there is an absolute and independent (of our own personal feelings, ideas and wisdom) source of "rightness" and "wrongness"...God...revealed through scripture.
Now you may not agree with it, but it is superficial and simplistic to dismiss it simply because you don't. All you are saying is that "your view doesn't matter because I don't agree with it."
It is quite interesting to note that those that hold that "homosexuality is just a natural, normal expression of human love, and there is nothing evil, sinful or wrong with it", hold this view/belief with the same fervor and zealousness as do those that hold the opposite view. The certainty that they are absolutely "right".
Wow. What a lot of fake logic dancing around, all to protect yourself from the obvious (to anyone who knows any gay folks).
Of course, you sort of have to do that dance, since by your own admission to acknowledge the obvious would mean your prejudice is wrong.
Your prejudice is wrong. All the genetic, medical, experiential and common sensical evidence tells us that sexual orientation is as much a part of our genetic makeup as hair color or handedness.
I know dozens of gay people, and the simple, straightforward manifestation of their sexuality is so obvious, so easily in sync with who they are that the idea that they are "choosing" their orientation, for whatever bizarre motivations, is laughably ignorant.
Of course, in the bosom of your Jesus loving peoples, it may be that you are making any homosexuals in sight so fucking miserable that you regard their sadness as evidence of their debased nature. If so, better pray harder. I suspect God really really hates it when you do that.
You are in precisely the same position as the racist of the earlier part of this century who is at some pains to explain the "rational" basis for his blind prejudice.
"I have nothing against the Negro", he explains. "I wish him well, and hope that he make seek his betterment. However, it is simply an undeniable fact, both medically and scripturally, that the Negro is not blessed with the same faculties of reason and judgment as the Caucasian races. Though he may strive in earnest, he will never be capable of marshaling the powers of civilized discourse and behavior on which this great society is founded. Therefore I say with no animosity that the Negro can never participate in the larger business of the nation, lest we find ourselves brought down to his level"
Doesn't that sound appalling to the modern ear? Isn't it made all the worse by its tone of pseudo-earnestness and rationality? Its specious appeals to fake science and a highly selective reading of the Bible?
Precisely the tack you are taking. I just hope you have the breadth of character to be embarrassed by your nonsense, in 20 or 30 years, when this sad, foolish and pointless bigotry is broadly understood to be lie that it is.