**TL;DR: Focusing on whether homosexuality is a choice is irrelevant because it is not inherently wrong. Justifying homosexuality with biology still presumes that homosexuality is a flaw that simply must be overlooked because it is outside human control.** Journalist Marcia Mallory of the [Scientific American](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/) puts our culture’s take on homosexuality quite neatly. She maintains that, when asked if homosexuality is a choice, society either holds that people immorally choose to be gay, which the government should discourage, or, opposingly, that sexual preference is biologically determined and so the government should protect gay people from discrimination because homosexuality is an unalterable aspect of their identity. Irrespective of the diverging prescriptions on how to best handle homosexuality, a single diagnosis is clear: homosexuality is, at best, a natural flaw that must simply be tolerated. There is, apparently, either no excuse for being attracted to the same gender, or there is some mess of biological factors that excuse homosexuals of their preferences. Ostensibly writing in solidarity with the gay community, [this article](https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764), entitled “Stop calling it a choice: Biological factors drive homosexuality” offers a few genes and evolutionary theories to explain why homosexual tendencies are completely predetermined. This belief is comfortable because it reasons that behavior must be excusable if it is out of our individual sphere of control. After all, if you can’t make your cat bark, you might as well make peace with the fact that you’re stuck with a cat (obviously implying the dog would still have been favorable). Regardless of justification, the assumption underpinning this line of thought remains that homosexuality is a blight. Using science to justify homosexuality is still no more tolerant than outright announcing homosexuality’s perversion.

**TL;DR - Focusing on what causes people to be straight or gay or bi is irrelevant; homosexuality predetermination misses the point because homosexuality does not need to be justified.** • Arguing that homosexuality is predetermined and biological still supports the archaic argument that homosexuality is the flawed and alternate choice. • Homosexuality predetermination also presents homosexuality as being outside of human control. • Moreover, when looking at the scientific arguments, [this article](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26089486), highlights how the media have oversimplified genetic theories of sexuality with labels such as “the gay gene”, and shows how people need to remember that if sexuality is biological, it’s not only gay people whose sexuality is determined by their genes but straight people too. • Therefore, homosexuality predetermination misses the point as the point isn’t why people are homosexual, but it is that they are and there is nothing wrong with that.

This not the usual "nurture vs nature" quandry. The crux of homosexual tendancies is Mankind's sin nature. Even if there is a genetic component to it, that would be like a birth defect; dare I say, a generational curse. (Thus, my "agree" here may not be in agreement with the others who also chose it.)

**In some ways, yes. However, the idea that sexual orientation is predetermined is an important counter to the argument that homosexuality is wrong on the basis that it is 'unnatural'.** - I mostly agree. Disagreement on the topic of sexual morality and homosexuality is mostly about whether the act of having sex with someone of the same sex is wrong. Therefore, whether you have chosen to be gay or not is irrelevant. Even many religious people who are against homosexual lifestyles condemn behaviour rather than sexual orientation, which they accept is something that you can’t change. For example, the catholic church currently teaches that [being gay is not itself inherently wrong, but certain behaviours, which we can choose whether to partake in or not, are wrong.] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality#Church_teaching) This then is the main crux of the disagreement. - However, as many people base their idea of morality on what is ‘natural’, homosexual predetermination arguments are still relevant in the discussion. Research suggests that [4/10 Americans think that being gay is a choice](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/06/americans-are-still-divided-on-why-people-are-gay/). We also know that many Americans are Christians who are against gay marriage. Presumably then, the idea that being gay is a human choice, or a product of evil influences is an important part of their belief that it is wrong. Here, predetermination would be a relevant counterargument. - The language of Christianity often refers to the ways in which human beings are created a certain way, perfectly designed by God. The idea that God has lovingly created a person’s sexuality is a powerful one and is the reasoning behind the stance of many more liberal Christians. - Although the catholic church emphasises immorality of behaviour rather than sexual orientation, homosexual predetermination also poses a significant challenge to this teaching which is based on [‘natural law’. ](https://uscatholic.org/articles/201807/what-is-natural-law/). If natural human biology suggests a natural order for sex, but then what about the natural biology of individuals with different sexual orientations? Surely this suggests something about how they should behave, being made in the image of God as they are? - I understand the argument that homosexual predetermination should not have to be used to defend gay people, making it irrelevant. However, in a world where people are still blamed for their sexual orientation or forced to undergo horrific ‘therapies’ for being gay, it is still an important part of the conversation which can promote acceptance.

Yes it does miss the point. Homosexuality is wrong whether it's natural or learned behaviour. So in that sense it misses the point. But this opinion is still an interesting thing to explore anyway.