One of the arguments offered by those in support of homosexuality is that homosexuality is an orientation that people are born with and it has the same moral value as the hair color someone has at birth. The implication is that since they are said to be born gay, then it is normal and morally acceptable.  The media seems to support this idea, and it is a common position held to justify the behavior.  But there are two problems with this position.

First of all, there are a plethora of studies with conflicting results with conclusions on both sides of the argument. Nevertheless, we could quickly consider studies that deal with identical twins. If genetics determines sexual orientation, then it should be manifested when studying twins who share the exact same genetic information.  However, that isn’t the case.  Consider this…

“…If genetic influence were expressed in these data, MZ twins¹monozygotic means twins formed from a single fertilized egg that splits into to embryos should have the highest concordance for same-sex erotic preference, and unrelated and half-siblings the lowest. Table 5 is based on pairs in which at least one respondent reports a same-sex romantic attraction (N=527 pairs)…there is no evidence for strong genetic influence on same-sex preference in this sample. Among MZ twins, 6.7 % are concordant. DZ twin ²dizygotic means twins formed from two separate eggs that were not formed from the same initial egg pairs are 7.2% concordant. Full-siblings are 5.5 % concordant. Clearly, the observed concordance rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic similarity. None of the comparisons between MZ twins and others in table 5 are even remotely significant17. If same-sex romantic attraction has a genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors. As argued above, it is more likely that any genetic influence, if present, can only be expressed in specific and circumscribed social structures.”³Opposite sex twins and adolescents same-sex attraction” by Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy, 2001. http://iserp.columbia.edu/content/opposite-sex-twins-and-adolescent-same-sex-attraction.   [underline added]

In addition, genetic information that supports heterosexual attraction is more likely to be passed to offspring than would homosexual genetic information since homosexual practice does not produce offspring.  It would seem, as the study states, that homosexuality is not genetically based.  Therefore, homosexuality is a learned behavior and should not be called an orientation, but a preference.

Born this way and morality

Second, if being born gay means that homosexuality is morally acceptable because it is as natural to them, then it must also be morally acceptable for those who are born with a tendency to oppose homosexuality.  It would mean that “heteros” should not be urged to change their “orientation” nor should they be ridiculed for opposing homosexuality — since they are born that way.  To be consistent, the homosexual community should support homophobia as a natural sexual orientation that they are born with.  After all, it would seem more likely that heterosexuality is genetically based since heterosexual behavior produces offspring where homosexual behavior does not.  So, heterosexual orientation must be genetically natural, should be supported as normal behavior, should not be ridiculed, should have civil rights protection, and be promoted in schools and the media.  And, homosexuals who accuse heteros of being homophobic should be labeled as heterophobes. Otherwise, the obvious double-standard offered by the homosexual community will once again rear its ugly head.

Another problem

Furthermore, to carry the excuse that homosexuality is genetically based on its logical conclusion, then men born with a natural attraction to young boys are should also be considered as having a legitimate sexual orientation with its accompanying moral propriety.  Or, are we to say that only homosexual attraction is genetic and morally good where pedophilia is not.  If so, why the double standard?  And, to step further into the abyss, what do we do with those who are born with the tendency to lie, covet, hate, and steal?  Shouldn’t they all be morally acceptable as well since that is how we are born?  If not, why not?

Conclusion

The problem with using genetics as an excuse to justify behavior is that whatever tendency we might be born with must be considered normal. This includes lying, pedophilia, homosexuality, and rape. But, such logical inference will not be acceptable to the pro-homosexual community because selective statistics and discriminatory reasoning are offered to justify their behavior.