------------
Admittedly, I'm not a medical doctor. But, I was required to take human anatomy and physiology in college. The prof spent a lot of time talking about human sexual differences and how they are determined. Below is some of what we were taught.

You'll find a lot of disagreement about a genetic influence on homosexuality on the Internet. I'm not proposing that I'm convinced one way or the other. But, I'm not going to dismiss a genetic influence out of hand.

From my college days, let's look at a few physiological instances. As an egg is fertilized, it starts out with both the X and Y chromosomes from the male and a Y chromosome from the female. That gives it 2 Y's to 1 X chromosomes. In its earliest stages, it even shows evidence of "gill slits," like a fish. (But, that's beside the point.)

Also, during development, the fetus' brain goes through a "hormonal bath" which many believe is when the gender is determined. Some researchers say that ALL fetuses begin as females. As evidence, they point out that ALL (normal) people have nipples. Why do males have nipples when we can't nurse? Additionally, (and I hope this doesn't get me kicked off), if one examines a man's scrotum, you'll notice what looks like a scar running down the sack from the base of the penis to the anus. Many medical physiologists say that the "scar" is there because as the male reproductive organs formed outside the body cavity, what would've become the vaginal lips grew together forming the penis and scrotum; hence the "scar."

Another bit of evidence of genetic coding for homosexuality is in the instances of hermaphroditism. That's when a person has the physical characteristics of both sexes. Sometimes one of the sexual organs is more pronounced than the other and sometimes there are both complete sets of sexual organs.

In the past, shortly after birth, surgery was done to remove the lesser sexual organs and the child was raised in the ways of the remaining gender. Sometimes, the organs were left as is and the child decided it's sexual identity as it matured. A "mutation" in the DNA is linked to hermaphroditism, and consequently, is believed to be associated with homosexuality.

Below are some links to some websites that indicate a genetic link to homosexuality.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/10/19/is-homosexuality-a-choice/

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9385646&fileId=S0033291714002451

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/being-born-gay-isnt-your-genes-its-them

----------
Allow me theses questions:
1). Given religion's and society's general condemnation regarding homosexuality, why would anyone "decide" to be homosexual and, for the most part, be forced to hide their "chosen" lifestyle from family and friends?

2). You claim homosexuality is a "chosen" lifestyle. Yet, it has managed to survive eras of time, equating to thousands of generations, without, literally, dying-out. It's known, to, that heterosexual couples have had offspring that, at some point in their lives, declare themselves to be homosexual. Additionally, heterosexual couples have had multiple offspring (even sets of identical and non-identical twins) to declare themselves homosexual. Explain how or why homosexuality has managed to remain in existence since before recorded history if it is sexually non-reproductive and there is no genetic reasoning behind it?

3). Getting a headache is a physical act. Is it a choice on your part to get one? :wink:

4). An alcoholic taking a drink is a physical act. Biblically, being an alcoholic was a sin. Alcoholism is defined as a medical disease by the medical profession, with a recognized, genetic propensity toward its causation. Until recently, the genetic link wasn't known or accepted as fact; now, it is. Given that alcoholism is now known to be a disease, is it still a "sin of choice?"

Good questions. However, consider that all sins result from genetic predisposition. Wrath is part of our "fight or flee" survival mechanism. Gluttony results from our instinct to feed ourselves. Pride and envy, and avarice from our instinct for personal survival by being the more fit, the better prepared, the top of the heap. Lust from our natural desire to procreate. And sloth, from our instinct to accomplish all of the above with a minimum of energy expended.

Is a predisposition to sin then a mitigating circumstance? In the absence of temptation, there is no virtue. If you don't like liquor, there is no particular virtue in your being sober. If, on the other hand, you love the stuff, you love how it makes you feel, then it is a mark of virtue and self-discipline that you control your impulses and remain temperate.

Some things may be OK in moderation--eating and drinking, for instance--the sin being in excess; other things may be without any merit whatsoever, and so are sinful, period. Given the idea that there is a Creator who has identified what these behaviors are, what difference does it make if you have the hypothetical gene that makes you want to be a drunk or be a homosexual, or whatever?

You still have the choice, the free will, to do as you will.

I think in many respects, in our current society, gay people enjoy the protection of the federal gov't for their life choices, whereas fat people are actively discriminated against by some, with no recourse. However, I don't recall saying that gay people are either more or less sinful than fat people for giving in to their personal temptations.

And welcome or shunned by whom, BTW? Whether one welcomes or shuns either fat or gay people, or any other type of person, is entirely a matter of personal preference.

And, finally, when the point of my post was to agree with your premise that being gay is no worse than any other sin, what is the argument? I merely said that temptation, predilection, genetic predisposition, or whatever term you want to use, to engage in harmful behavior is not an excuse for engaging in the behavior.

Sorry Charlie, no where in the Bible does it say that those condemned will "burn for eternity in hell." That is one of the greatest misinterpretations by those, like yourself and many Christians, who have only a superficial knowledge of the Word of God.

The "eternal fire" is a spiritual metaphor for the destruction of the soul. Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example. It is gone, destroyed, not a thing left, burned up completely. But it is not still burning today.

The wages of sin is DEATH, not eternal damnation.

But any conversation about the Bible with non-believers is pointless. You have your beliefs or non-beliefs and that is that. So be it.