Dell Gines,at the Urban Conservative tackles this familiar topic here. Also a hot discussion is brewing at Booker Rising Scroll down to get to topic.
You already know what I believe. Check out some other viewpoints.
BTW, here is a blockbuster if I ever read one by Dell. Powerful!:
1) Homosexuality can only be proven as homosexuality by an individual who says he is homosexual.
For example, have you heard the term ‘prison gay’? Where guys who go into the joint eventually have sex with another fella, but vehemently proclaim they are not gay. So is homosexuality an ‘act’ or an ‘attraction’. If it is an attraction, how do measure ‘homosexuality’ other than by a statement of someone who is homosexual saying he is so? We wouldn’t consider the college girl ‘experimenting’ to be homosexual, or the one counter sex act guy. UNLESS he says that is what he is.
Which brings me to my second point.
2) If the only way to determine homosexuality is through the direct statement of the homosexual, then this in and of itself proves that it is not a genetic predisposition or that not all who are gay are genetically predetermined. Why? Because we have many folks who were gay, that say they are no longer gay, and by the argument I made in point one, we have to take them at their word. Therefore if one can ‘change’ attraction, then it must not be genetic, unless the change occurs at a cellular level. As of yet I have not heard of any radiation treatment that eliminates the mysterious ‘gay gene’.
That is why discrimination MAY occur, but it is materially different when the discrimination is based upon race, and when it is based upon what I consider a choice. That is why comparisons between blacks and gays upsets me, because yes, discrimination is discrimination, but not all discrimination is bad (IE bad credit, felony record, sex offender register etc) and if the behavior in question is defined as a moral choice, then to discriminate against it is not necessarily immoral. I would depend on context.