Also...if it is genetic then why don't gays have physical characteristics that accomodate this? For example: Gay men should have vagina like qualities to their anus to accommodate their different mode of sexual intercourse. Women should have -- I don't know -- something to accommodate theirs. As it is now all they do for "intercourse" is mutually masturbate. According to the Democrats, that isn't sex.
In short: If gays evolved that way then why didn't -- in the course of natural selection and evolution -- they also get different body parts that support their behavior?
Some might say that gay men have effeminate voices but it could just be environment. Do black men have a genetic reason to speak ebonics?
When I saw Rip Taylor, he denied being homosexual but did reveal that he was raised by 2 female prostitutes and sexually abused by a man (fondled?) while he was a child.
Because there is no selective advantage for them (as individuals.) They didn't (in general) directly pass on offspring. The genes are passed through relatives. Therefore there is no selective pressure related to physical characteristics -- only to behavior. The selective pressure is to the group, not the individual.
Now you may say, well that is strange. Is there any other human characteristic that benefits the group rather than the individual, and where the characteristic is exhibited through behavior rather than as a physical characteristic?
Yes. There are many studies that have been done on the selective advantage of "altruism". In nature, this is where an individual will take a risk that benefits others in the group, but increases the risk to that individual. The open question has been - how is this behavior genetically determined, if exhibiting the behavior will reduce the chance of the individual reproducing. The answer is, it is genetically passed through that individuals relatives.
In order to get the kind of changes you hve described one has to (1) get a mutation that allows for a change in human embryological development, resulting in said changes, and (2) pass that particular mutation along to offspring. Also, if this occured one could make an argument for a new species of man. So, in this sense, according to the "tribe argument," since gays in the tribe do not produce, you won't see these kinds of changes.
Also, just because gays don't reproduce, doesn't mean that the genetic frequency of genes that cause "gayness" would change. Why because gays are born from straight parents. The gene frequencies are actually maintained through straight carriers. In large enough populations (6 billion humans), without selection pressures, gene frequencies tend not to change, but rather stay the same. By analogy think about the disease cystic fibrosis. Most of these people don't live to an age when they can reproduce - yet children with cystic fibrosis are still born at a pretty constant rate. Basically, when you have enough carriers, and a reasonable amount of random mating, these genes will continue to circulate in the population.
Is gayness genetic? I'm sure that's part of it, but even if gayness were purely genetic, it still shouldn't hurt a Christian's perspective. For instance violent people (in prison) have been shown have similar genes. So since violence and antisocial behavior has a genetic compent, do we excuse it? No. Because we all have a choice. I know three gay people, one an aquaintance, and the other two are friends, and I think I safely say that for these people their orientation is what is natural for them. They were born being attracted to men. If you think about it, in a fallen and imperfect world, why would we expect there not some be some screwed up genes, and people who are screwed up because of those genes?