[skeeter]

I agree... people don't choose to be homosexual, any more than a person chooses to be schizophrenic, manic depressive, excessive compulsive, etc.

And neither do we grant any other mental disorder their own special rights.

[Ouderkirk]

One chooses to get F*&^ed up the a$$ or to suck that mans D*&^. There is a moment of truth where one has to decide.

[Lucky Dog]

The issue, succinctly stated, is simply that the existence, or lack thereof, of a “gay” or “homosexual” gene (or any other inborn proclivity) as it may, or may not, influence sexual orientation is completely immaterial to any discussion concerning homosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is defined by behavior, i.e., unless one engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex, he, or she, is not a homosexual. (The term sexual orientation is a description of feelings.) Feelings do not control the behavior of a mentally healthy adult human being.

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, homosexual behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If homosexual behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal regulations, i.e., laws, social stigma, etc., as is any other sexual behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc. Furthermore, if homosexual behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to special rights or considerations than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

If homosexual behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure, just as are nymphomania, drug addiction, etc.

As an added consideration, there is the argument of Darwinian selection: survival of the fittest. Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual… and the issue is, again, defined as a behavioral choice.)

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from procreating, not the currently observed proportion of the population, e.g., Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome.

Given that the observed homosexual practitioner proportion of the population is around 2% or 3% rather than a small fraction of 1%, homosexuality does not fit the criteria for a genetic source.

Once again, U.S. health regulations currently prohibit men who have sex with men (homosexual practitioners – aka "gays") from donating blood. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration studies categorically confirm that if homosexual practitioners were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: "[ homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

The FDA further warns: "[ homosexual practitioner or 'gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in "homosexual practitioners than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study found that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

[elpadre]

there have been huge sums of money paid to scientists and behavioral experts over many years attempting to find a biological cause and so far they have come up empty.

For sure I don't know, but neither do they.

[little jeremiah]

Any act they engage in is chosen. Plus, they can choose to seek help!