> I know your values and your character.

You do not. You are prejudicially lumping me in with other people you know or have had conversations with. But it's only bias to assume my values and character are the same.

> If one of those perspectives is that you treat people differently based on the person they love you have told me all about you that I need to know.

I see that you say, "If...", meaning that you don't know if I do or not. That's what I mean. You don't know me, my values, or my character. You're just judging me with prejudice and bias.

> We have established the type of person you are.

We have not. We have established close to nothing about what type of person I am, except that I am very tolerant and patient with you, and am treating you with kindness.

I know all about you I need to know. I know your values and your character.

You can have different perspectives. If one of those perspectives is that you treat people differently based on the person they love you have told me all about you that I need to know.

We have established the type of person you are. There isn't more to talk about. You have nothing else for me.

Wow, this is very judgmental, prejudicial, and said with no knowledge. You don't know me at all. You don't know my character. I'm not a bigot just because I disagree with you. I've never harmed anyone and never will.

We're here for dialogue. It's OK to have different perspectives and opinions—the world is a better place because of diversity and disagreements about things. The challenge is to disagree, discuss ideas, and be civil about it all. That's why I'm here for conversation. I'm still willing to talk, but your prejudice and judgmentalism is telling.

Then it seems that you are just a religious bigot who uses your faith to harm others.

Since i know your character there really isnt more yo ask you. Thanks for the conversation.

There is nothing here i dont already know

> Are you really trying to imply that gay people wake up one day and chose to be gay?

I'm not implying anything; I said it explicitly. What I said was that "no one knows the origins of homosexual orientation." From one geneticist I talked to, he said, "So, in a nutshell, we know some things, but very little. But the idea that it's a trait that is predominantly genetically determined is not true." Another geneticist said, "The science suggests a biological component, but that doesn't determine the outcome." Like most human behaviors, sexuality is complicated. One biologist I talked to said, "Claims that there is a single 'gay gene' or that sexual orientation is entirely genetic (or epigenetic) are almost certainly not true. Like anything, sexual orientation (and importantly the resulting behavior) is mediated by social and cultural context." So that's what I'm saying, not implying.

> Evidence of homosexual behavior has been observed in lots of others animal species. Did those animals chose to be gay?

As far as we know, animal behavior of that sort is genetic. What's not clear, however, is whether such behavior in humans is. In animals, certain species are, and others are not. Since humanity is all one specie, we can't automatically transfer concepts over from the animal world to us. We have to follow the science, not draw conclusions based on what we want those conclusions to be.

> Are you threatened by the idea that God makes gay people?

I'm not threatened at all, but the science doesn't bear out that God makes gay people. I'm following the science.

So my gay friend knew that he was attracted to other men at age 4-5.

Are you really trying to imply that gay people wake up one day and chose to be gay?

That seems to be a false idea.

Evidence of homosexual behavior has been observed in lots of others animal species. Did those animals chose to be gay?

Are you threatened by the idea that God makes gay people?

Actually, I'm quite tolerant. We live in a pluralistic society and allow for plenty of lifestyle choices that are not my choices, and that's people's freedom to live as they wish. Actually my Christianity teaches me to love everybody, and so I do. I'm not intolerant, and it's prejudiced for you to judge me when you don't even know me. But you're entitled to your opinion.

> I don’t see that it matters whether the sexuality and gender of an individual is genetic or learned or a choice or fluid over time, or whatever.

It only matters because that's the discussion at hand. The OP wanted to discuss " 'god made you a man/woman so you shouldn't change that' but wouldn't have god made that person trans as well?" So we're talking bout whether it's genetic or learned.

> Being different is not a sin.

You are right about this. Sin is never about being different, but about dishonoring God.

> The basis for believing sexual differences are a sin relies on only a very few biblical statements that are each heavily debated and not beholden to a single interpretation.

Your comment is a little odd. I didn't say anything in my post about sin. The discussion was about free will and the origins of homosexual orientation. We can talk about what the Bible says, if you like, but that's not what this discussion is about.

> This should cause doubt in a rational human being, rather than causing a retreat into unfounded certainty.

Again, you seem to be arriving at a conclusion based on prejudged assumption that hasn't been in the discussion. You assume I've staked a claim on some "unfounded certainty" when the only thing I've said is "Science hasn't proved that homosexuality is genetically determined."

There’s also not a gene for intolerance (although I didn’t ask 4 biologists and 2 geneticists). So is that just a you thing or did God make you that way? I don’t see that it matters whether the sexuality and gender of an individual is genetic or learned or a choice or fluid over time, or whatever. Being different is not a sin. The basis for believing sexual differences are a sin relies on only a very few biblical statements that are each heavily debated and not beholden to a single interpretation. This should cause doubt in a rational human being, rather than causing a retreat into unfounded certainty.

> The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

True. My point, however, is that many claim to use science ("It's genetic. I can't help it. I was made this way. It's biological.") to justify their position, and I'm saying the science isn't there. Whether some day in the future more is discovered and more is known (which is altogether possible), but for now it's not legitimate to use science to substantiate those particular claims. That evidence is absent, for now.

> But the whole "it's not a choice, I was born that way" is a terrible argument in general

I agree, but they attempt to use science to make the point. But the science doesn't support the point.

> A much better logical argument in support of homosexuality would be "even if it's a choice, nobody is (naturally) harmed by it".

Sure, that's possible, but I'm not sure "harm" is one of the grounds of morality. No one may be harmed by political lies about this, that, or the other thing (since much of it is just political maneuvering), but that doesn't make it OK, let alone right.

There are other issues where I don't think "no harm, no foul" is a workable moral standard or logical argument: cheating on tests, manipulating accounting records, etc.

Eh, your conclusion is weak. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

But the whole "it's not a choice, I was born that way" is a terrible argument in general, since that's the exact same argument often used by pedophiles and serial killers.

A much better logical argument in support of homosexuality would be "even if it's a choice, nobody is (naturally) harmed by it". And if they bring up AIDS, the retort is "that's only non-monogamous people, gay or not."

But for some reason, I almost never see gay people making this argument.