So say we agree that sexual orientation is primarily a function of nature. What then? Does it change anything about the debate?
Absolutely - as long as one side keeps insisting that it's universally unnatural - that all gay people choose to be gay. (especially if the claim is that they choose to FEEL homosexual attractions)
Does it change the "right" vs. "wrong" debate? Not really, especially for those (like Mormons) who don't have a "natural is always right" philosophy in the first place. However, it absolutely makes those who condemn it find a "valid" reason to condemn it, since calling it unnatural simply isn't valid. It's an ignorant, incorrect argument, and it really shouldn't be made.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all homosexual activity is biological and unavoidable and inevitable. I'm not saying there is no choice in the matter of one's sexual activity. I'm not saying anything like that. I'm not even arguing in this thread that homosexuality is good, bad, okay or reprehensible. There's no moral judgment in this thread at all. I'm just saying the discussion ought to be grounded in reality and solid arguments, and saying homosexuality (the feeling) and homosexual activity (the actions) are unnatural simply isn't reality or a solid argument.
That's why I say religions lost the debate the minute they latched onto the "unnatural" justification. That argument simply is wrong.