Why do people commonly cite the unchosen nature of homosexuality in its defence?

What would you say the difference between a "biological" taboo and a "cultural" taboo is? You seem to be merely stating your own idea of morality.

Not sure how you've managed to implicate sex and civility. Are a married couple who have sex with one another twice a day every day hedonists?

Whenever homosexuality is included in debate it is invariably raised that it isn't a 'choice', as if that should act as a defence for it and a reason to be accepting of it. It's as if people are suggesting that if people had a choice of sexuality and chose to be gay they would somehow be more deserving of rebuke than if it were an unchosen and unchangeable part of their nature. I find it strange that the unchosen nature of homosexuality should always be included as a supporting reason to tolerate it.

I would be interested to hear what others have to say about this.

I find it hard to decide whether homosexuality is natural, chosen or can be both.

The majority are seen to be born with it and then develop the mindset and desire.
But they're those who choose to delve in undercover or temporary homosexual acts.
Bisexual men and women will always be classed as gay in my books.

What evidence is there to suggest that babies are born gay? Are there any neurological differences that correlate to an enjoyment of orifice-stuffing by other men during early childhood?

This is the proof a sceptic should demand for such a claim of natural behaviour. Anyone can bone a bloke, but it's not in the population's best interest to spread such a behaviour. Hence the outlawed behaviour since the dawn of time.

What evidence is there to suggest that babies are born gay? Are there any neurological differences that correlate to an enjoyment of orifice-stuffing by other men during early childhood?

This is the proof a sceptic should demand for such a claim of natural behaviour. Anyone can bone a bloke, but it's not in the population's best interest to spread such a behaviour. Hence the outlawed behaviour since the dawn of time.

Homosexuality is observed in many species. It is natural.

You mean it is observed that many animals instinctually get it wrong. Male-male fertilisation and reproduction is what constitutes homosexuality and some animals just don't care where they stick it. This is a clear indicator that it's a choice.

Again, I want neurological proof from analysis on a baby, untouched by society, to find homosexuality to be a real "orientation". If you can't show me this, I can't do anything but call this a lifestyle choice.

On the other hand, I know a Jehovah's Witness who hates himself for committing acts of a homosexual nature. You could see it as proof that someone who believes they are now going to Hell for a contradictory view is gay. I'm still not sure, however. Very anecdotal and he is still exposed to the liberal propaganda of the USA.

"There is an evolutionary theory nicknamed "sneaky ****ers" which is all about how males that are less adept at getting a mate can find other sneaky ways of passing on their genes. One example of this is bisexual male humans being left behind whilst the other males go off to hunt. This male has been left with the females since he is assumed to be homosexual and no threat of him stealing their women. He then has free reign over all the females. Thus the gay/bisexual gene is passed on."

That proves my point that it's not a gay gene. It is a mechanism in which men will claim to be homosexual, but are in fact not. They'll commit acts of sodomy for fun until the time comes to mate. How this equals your idea of homosexuality, I don't quite know.

Homosexuality is observed in many species. It is natural. Also lol at you thinking a human societal construct such as "outlawing" something means that act is unnatural, that's adorable

Why exactly do you even care so much? What do you mean it is not in the populations best interests?

There is an evolutionary theory nicknamed "sneaky ****ers" which is all about how males that are less adept at getting a mate can find other sneaky ways of passing on their genes. One example of this is bisexual male humans being left behind whilst the other males go off to hunt. This male has been left with the females since he is assumed to be homosexual and no threat of him stealing their women. He then has free reign over all the females. Thus the gay/bisexual gene is passed on.

There are other ways people can contribute to the populations best interests other than procreating. Alan Turing (who was gay) played a major role in Britain defeating the Nazis. He contributed massively. A gay human is also capable of helping raise someone else offspring in the group.

Even if someone does beciome gay through conditiosning so what? It is still natural and it doesn't harm anyone. YOu lot just mask bigotry being pseudo science waffle.

Genetics are not the only way it would be not a choice. As you don't choose your environment, environmental factors influencing sexual orientation would also mean it wasn't a choice.

However, that's not what this thread is about. If you'd like to have a debate regarding if you think homosexuality is a choice then please start your own thread for that topic.

I find it hard to decide whether homosexuality is natural, chosen or can be both.

What evidence is there to suggest that babies are born gay? Are there any neurological differences that correlate to an enjoyment of orifice-stuffing by other men during early childhood?

This is the proof a sceptic should demand for such a claim of natural behaviour. Anyone can bone a bloke, but it's not in the population's best interest to spread such a behaviour. Hence the outlawed behaviour since the dawn of time.

Given the whole overpopulation thing, you could argue that people forming relationships where there is no chance of reproduction between themselves is actually beneficial for the population..