If there are people who say they are gay with whom you have to work or share family gatherings, nothing is forcing you to get in their faces about it, unless you have put in the time to deeply consider a religious point of view and are able to take the risk of sharing it gently with the goal of planting a seed, or directing them to someone who can flesh out the spriritual dimensions. If you feel unable to say anything constructive, it's ok to just tolerate people and not get drawn into discussing it unless they are sincerely seeking a way out. If they are, or if they are considering adopting and are open actually to weighing the pros and cons, and if it wouldn't deprive your family of your livelihood, it may be worth a shot to say that other opinions are out there, and they should look into all points of view.
So if you have felt that you need to believe your friends or family members who are gay just really can't help it, and that helps you to accept them, I'm saying you don't need to do that to accept their presence in your vicinity. Tolerance is just that: accepting people in a civil way without having to agree with them. Some people take a really long time to wake up from the various trouble spots in life, and we've all got some.
As I've pointed out above, the homosexual lobby has with great success attempted to criminalize mere tolerance. Court cases have been mounted and won demanding that businesses set aside their beliefs to cater to homosexualist demands -- abrogations of Americans' First Amendment freedoms of conscience and association. Homosexualists' claim of absolute biological determination is a key argument in courts of law when they seek to crush any other point of view, including a right of religious belief.
But science has never been able to prove their claim that they are "born that way." It's a war that has been won by the public relations and civil rights law industries, not by actual painstaking research.
I believe my gay friends’ depiction that they are born with the afflection more than someone with a political agenda (you). Thanks.
“It’s just people seeking to justify their opinions emotionally, no offense.”
Or it can be the good-faith observations of honest men who are sincerely seeking the truth, even if it means they must admit they have been wrong.
This type of observation is preferable to “scientific evidence” today, given the degree to which politics has corrupted science.