I'm not getting my point across so I'll be more precise. I believe 1. Homosexuality is inherited pre-birth, 2. Homosexuality is not immoral, 3. Points 1 & 2 have nothing to do with each other.
Point#3 is what I'm trying to get across. What causes homosexuality combined with whether it can or cannot be prevented or altered has no bearing on whether it is moral or ideal. And in my experience (that is 30 years as a homosexual, talking to doctors, reading a few books and probably over one hundred thousand comments/debates over a variety of sources) no one beside me and a few others seem to be able to distinguish the two on either side of the debate.
You seem to understand the distinction as you specifically explained what about it is moral (consenting adults, harms no one, etc). Most people however think 'Born that way' cuts it and leaves it at that only to bring up what you said after they've been called out on their faulty logic, for example.
Person A: Homosexuals are born that way
Person B: What about (bad thing)? People are born with that too
Person A: (Bad thing) hurts people homosexuality doesn't how dare you compare the two.
Point is Person A compared the two when they used broad/faulty reasoning to justify something, Person B merely pointed it out. Why is it so many gay supporters think the opposer's can be swayed by pointing out they're born with it? I mean is there anything you find immoral that you wouldn't if you learnt they can't change wanting to do it? I don't think so. It would soften the view of the person sure but the action would remain just as immoral and we'd still hold them accountable for it.
The same rules apply when discussing if something is ideal or a disorder, disability, etc. We base this on whether something hinders ones life (like you defined). Yet so many talk as if the cause of homosexuality is in itself proof of its healthy status like so:
Person A: I don't like X
Person B: You were born with X and it can't be changed by any means
Person A: Oh in that case I love X
Again this makes no sense to me yet that is how so many people believe the conversation should flow. I see this in all sorts of forums with people who want to be rid of their desires are meant to be consoled by the fact they can't do anything about it and never could. This should only alter the attitude towards the thing Person A dislikes, the response that would make sense is "Oh ok in that case I'll play the hand I'm dealt and do the best with a bad situation' not 'I can't change a situation I think is bad? Alright then that means its good'.
If anyone were to convince these 'doctors' homosexuality cannot be changed I doubt their view of it would change with that fact. They would still see it as immoral or destructive or sinful and expect those 'afflicted' to simple suck it up and live heterosexual lives.
I also don't understand why people think it being a choice is a personal attack, sure the statement is ignorant of science but it shouldn't carry the emotional charge it does. Yet everytime someone says 'I support their choice' 90% of the replies will either be abusive (omg you said choice fuck off) or condescending (thanks but it's not a choice sweetie). Why is that? Sure most who say it's a choice think it's a bad one but this person specifically said they don't think its bad but because they mention the C-word they're treated like the enemy.
I've never felt the need to justify anything I do, say, think or believe on the basis I can't help it why should I or anyone feel differently when it comes to sexuality?
Because when I hear 'I don't have a choice' what comes to mind is shame, not pride. It's what people say when they don't like what they've done, to my ears it rings of 'Yes I know homosexuality is (bad thing you said) but I can't help it so you can't judge me!'
I don't think 'Born that way' is that important yet from what I've seen it is basically the anthem of the gay movement, it's number one defence and got-argument and that saddens me.
