Homosexuality is a “normal variation” of sexuality. “Normal variation” simply means it is within an expected range of possibilities that is not pathological or an outlier.

The problem with your use of “normal” is that it is to broad to be useful. You don’t account for identifiable sub-populations. Ex. something that is normal for a 2 year old may NOT be normal for a 20 year old.

Sin is sin (choices) and god does not make (genetic) mistakes (oh? Please explain 47 XXY to me – or even psychopathy).

This arguement has always puzzled me about Christians. If god doesn’t make mistakes then explain birth defects. Furthermore, if god doesn’t make mistakes then surely being gay isn’t a mistake. I truely feel that normal human sexuality has less to do with actual sex then are feelings about ourselves toward sex and sexuality. Whether it is influenced by genetics or biology, the few gay friends that I know have stated time and again that they knew very early before they even knew what “being gay” was that they were gay.
Further, science and christian fundamentalism are at odds. Fundamentalist use science to support what they already believe and discard sciences that do not support said belief. Imagine if Keppler or Newton had used this approach.

Also, what do you think of this money quote from Michael Bailey?

It’s one thing I have pointed out in some discussions concerning the very young intersexed males who are reassigned and raised as females. But the savvy anti-gay would naturally find that the response of a female-assigned person to a female was ultimately one of a heterosexual. And as they would agree that heterosexuality is natural, genetic, and the only real orientation, they simply conclude that nature is taking its course despite parental attempts to subvert (pervert) it.

I think Pawlenty like many think that homosexuality is an either – or situation. Either it is genetic or behavior but that is surely a false dichotomy.

That is exactly what I thought when I heard his explanation.
Additionally, it appeared to me to be that Pawlenty makes a political equation. If orientation is not genetic, then therefore punitive or discriminatory social policy is acceptable. “Not genetic” = punishable behavior.
Like the other candidates, he needs to be careful. Attitudes are shifting on this issue at a highly accelerated rate. We’ve passed the tipping point, and if current trends continue then by November 2012 this could be a challenge.

DAVE G – With Lynn David, I don’t put much stock in Stephen Black’s opinion or observations. His biases are strong and clear. Bring to us an account from someone who is not tied into proving homosexuality to be a state of pathology for political reasons.