Are homosexuals made or born?

It was a bit disappointing for me to see a conservative site accepting one of the premises of the left.  That is, that homosexuals are born, not made.

This is likely to get some friction for me to write this, but so be it.

Let's look at that premise, shall we?

I'm relying upon memory here, so all of this isn't exactly a researched post.

You have to start with some postulates to build a system of thought.  It is kinda like a mathematical proof.

Let's start with a few postulates of the pro-born argument:

1. Every society has homosexuals in it. That leads to a genetic argument.
2. Religion is a superstition, and not a science.  That leads to a secular argument.
3. Since religion is marginalized, it can't be a moral issue.  This leads to a political argument.
4. Since it isn't a moral issue, and should be a fairness issue, only superstitious hicks can believe that homosexuals are made, not born.  The only rational basis for society is to accept homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.  This leads to a social argument in favor of same-sex marriage.

Starting with number 1, every society has deviancy of some kind or another.  It would seem that all society has murder in it, as an example of such deviancies.  Therefore, by this argument, there must be a "murder" gene.  Even so, do we have to accept that kind of behavior?

As for number 2, religion is not superstition.  It is an acknowledgement that some knowledge exists outside of our ability to know.  For example, what happens when you die?  The only way to know this is to die and then report your results.  But how is this possible?  Therefore, there is no way to know what happens.  Here is where religion steps in and tries to fill in the knowledge gap.  To call that superstition is a stretch.  You have to make a leap of faith ( religion ) no matter how you answer that question.  If you say that nothing happens when you die, how can you prove it, one way or the other?  Therefore, a religious outlook on the question does not disqualify, nor marginalize those who take that path.

As for 3, since religion is not marginalized, a moral argument can be made on equal footing with a secular one.  One can say that murderers are made and not born because people have free will to do evil or good.  This is a moral argument.  One can also say that a person can choose to be homosexual or not because homosexuality is immoral, just as murder is.  You cannot allow murder to be excused simply because you claim that you were born that way.  Same thing for homosexuality.  Murder is a sin.  The moral argument is to "go and sin no more"--- not to rationalize it away as a product of one's own heredity.

As for 4, it can't be a fairness issue either.  One does not have the right to be immoral in the case of murder.  Does one have the right to immoral in some cases?  Unfortunately, yes.  But it is not looked upon as a good way to behave.  You can lie and not go to jail, for example.  But your word will not be accepted.  There are consequences for immoral behavior.  While some behaviors are more serious than others, the behavior should not be considered acceptable just because it is legal.  You can tolerate some immorality, but there's got to be limits and morality provides those limits.

So, what we have in effect is that the moral issue has been cast aside and it has been re-cast as a political argument.

This doesn't answer the born and not made argument sufficiently.  But it doesn't need to.  If you accept the moral argument, the rest follows.  Otherwise, it is down the slippery slope into the immoral situation that we now observe.