Gilda

I would qualify much of frogza's OP by adding a "some" in front of his statements regarding what Christians do and/or don't believe regarding homosexuality.

There are Christian churches that have no problem with homosexuality, homosexual acts, or homosexuals, the Episcopaleans, UU, MCC, and Unity churches, for example. Others look at homosexual acts as a sin, but see them as one among many. In a Christian sense, we're all sinners, and all have to look to Jesus for guidance and God for forgiveness of those sins. Everyone commits a myriad of sins on a regular basis. Homosexuality, assuming that it is a sin in the first place, which I and a great many other Christians don't believe, isn't one of the big ones, and doesn't deserve any special recognition or penalties as a result.

Personally, I think the stigmatization of homosexuality by some evangelical and/or fundamentalist Christians is really an after effect of a disapproval of homosexuality with a few biblical passages taken out of context used as justification.

Reproduction is again, one of those back end justifications. There is no requirement that heterosexual couples reproduce or even be capable of such, so to use this as an objection to homosexuality and homosexual relationships is to apply a condition solely to homosexuals for the purpose of condemning homosexuality, a circular argument at best.

Regarding the "gay gene": There is no such thing. The best evidence available indicates that male homosexuality is determined by gestational hormones and is fixed at birth. Female homosexuality is less certain, and seems to be more highly influenced by environmental factors, and does seem to be to some extent chosen by some lesbians, though the evidence varies so widely across the spectrum that the best we can say at this point is that theer is no one cause of female homosexuality; instead, there are multiple factors that all have an influence which varies from individual to individual, so the cause is for the most part unknown.

Gilda