Gay activists frequently claim they are born homosexual and that their sexual orientation is akin to something like eye color or left-handedness. For example, Troy Perry, a former Pentecostalist and the founder of the homosexual Metropolitan Community Church, states, "I was just born that way."
    Due to biological factors, many homosexuals claim their sexual preference is inevitable and unchangeable; therefore, the homosexual lifestyle is something society must accept as normal and even protect through civil rights legislation to prevent unfair discrimination. But are homosexual activists asking for basic civil rights or protected status?
    As Jim Woodall, the chief executive officer for Concerned Women of American, said, "We're willing to tolerate their {homosexuals'} behavior. Who they want to sleep with is their business. But that does not give them special protected status under the law."
    Do homosexuals need or deserve the extra protection of civil law? If their behavior is, indeed, biological then it should be discussed. But are homosexuals "born"?
    One campaign gay rights activists have successfully waged is getting the general populace to believe that homosexuality is a genetic trait. In other words, homosexuals are "born that way." Although there is no scientific basis for this belief, and, in fact, scientific studies seem to be proving that environment, inappropriate relationships, and childhood events are the biggest influences, the outdated gene theory has gained wide acceptance throughout western society. What most scientists are saying now is that homosexual behavior is far too complex to be attributed to a specific gene or even a genetic tendency.
    Regardless, if homosexuals really are born that way, the argument is made that society cannot reasonably expect them either to stop their behavior or convert to heterosexuality. It is unfair to expect people to change what they are biologically. This means that same-sex attraction is normal and even moral behavior for homosexuals.
    Consider the strength of the argument. If a person is homosexual because of an inbred biological condition, then he can reform his homosexuality only if he can find some way to altar his biological nature. But to date there is no evidence that such a profound physical alteration is possible. As a result, the homosexual is left with no hope for change. The implication of this view is that because the homosexual cannot change, all aspects of society must change, including education, religion, and law. Biological determinism not only affects our general attitude toward homosexuality but also our approach to counseling and treatment as well. If it is genetic it is useless to try to alter the behavior.
    From this point, the argument logically progresses to legalizing homosexual acts. Not only must we be accepted as socially legal for homosexuals, but they also must be promoted as "normal lifestyle options" by education since a certain percentage of children will always be "born that way."
    Some have argued that the church itself must be legally coerced, if necessary, to abandon its "immoral" discrimination against homosexual behavior and adopt a position in harmony with alleged scientific "facts."
    But is it really true that gay men and women are biologically predestined to a certain sexuality?
 

Taken from The Facts On Homosexuality, by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Published by Harvest House Publishers