The political debate over homosexuality can be summarized thus:
Pro: Gay people are born that way (i.e. it’s genetic). Therefore, homosexuality is good and should be legally supported.
Con: Gay people are not born that way, but choose to be that way. Therefore it should be outlawed.
Both arguments have hidden premises that can be show to be false. In order for them to work:
Pro: Gay people are born that way. All qualities that exist from birth are good. Therefore, homosexuality is good and should be legally supported.
Refutation: Not all qualities that exist from birth are good. Blindness, auto-immune disorders, and schizophrenia can all be genetic or congenital. These things are not good.
To their credit, a handful of opponents have pointed this out, but most political opposition is found under the other argument.
Con: Con: Gay people are not born that way, but choose to be that way. Whatever someone chooses to do, and is against our moral standard should be outlawed. Homosexuality is against our moral standard. Therefore it should be outlawed.
Refutation: What moral standard? If you are choosing to go with the Biblical standard, than why support the existence of no-fault divorce? I don’t recall any conservative arguing against that, let alone the legality of extra-marital sex (though they will often argue against ‘premarital sex’, which is a code word for ‘teenager sex’.) Hell, no-fault divorce was signed into law by Reagan.
The reality is that conservatives do not hold to a Biblical standard, but to ‘traditional morality’ which, if you examine it, simply means the morality of the WWII-era liberals, with a couple of modern twists. Their morality is based on popular consensus from a bygone era. “Because a bunch of people say so” is a much more ridiculous moral authority than genetics. At least genetics provide a qualitative, absolute standard.
So both sides are blowing out gas. The one side is arguing that homosexuality is good based on a foundation that does not prove something good even by their own standard. The other side is arguing that it is evil based on a morality that has no moral authority. The debate is empty.