Lokaire, nothing in your references tells us that homosexuality is a choice. After reading through the sources you provided; I couldn't find the research showing that either homosexuality or heterosexuality is a choice at all...
For example; nowhere in the sources you provided were heterosexual genes discussed. Have researchers found heterosexual genes?
If I remember correctly I believe Lokaire's OP contained a link with multiple sources confirming there is no biological evidence for homosexuality being genetic. Could be wrong. Regardless, it seems silly to argue about whether or not sexual orientation is genetic or not.
From a "religious" side of things, as a Christian, neither conclusion is at odds with the Biblical perspective. If it is not genetic, as the studies provided, then that makes sense Biblically, and if it is a choice, then that also makes sense. Personally I believe it is a combination of all factors.
Regardless, and from a non religious side of things, my thoughts on the issue is that this country has been and is about equal rights, both for the individual AND the collective, and freedom for those who are oppressed. Equal rights for the oppressed (contextually here, homosexuals) is something Christians should fight for, as that is what Jesus fought for. Hopefully that means seeking, fighting, and supporting something better for those who feel oppressed. Which isn't always homosexuals nowadays, by the way.
Actually the new testament was written during Roman times when homosexuality was an oddity, but not persecuted or even looked down upon. So they were going against social norms, not with them.
Have you heard of eunuchs? People usually think that just means a castrated man, but that's not wholly correct. It also included uncastrated men, or people who just don't get married, including priests.
The eunuchs played certain social roles, many which were helped by them being nonsexual.
I think the homosexuals were included in the grouping. And practically, if the guy likes cutting hair and won't bang your mistress then it wouldn't really matter if he was gay instead of castrated.
There are a few things I want to address here that are of interest.
Firstly, Lokiare's comment that homosexuality in rome was an oddity is a little inaccurate. Homosexuality in Rome was quite common and thought of as the social norm for men as long as the one being penetrated was either a slave or one of the "infames" (entertainers, gladiators, etc). Roman males did not view either sexuality or masculinity in the same way we do now. There was no stigma attached to a man lying with another man as long as he was the one doing the penetrating. This was part of their conquest mentality and therefore was pretty normal, at least in the Republic and early Principate time periods. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome. Homosexuality within the female demographic we simply do not know much about due to the fact that the female sexuality was simply deemed as unimportant in a society dominated by men and therefore male Roman writers did not write about it.
Your thought that homosexuals are included in the general term, "eunuch" is an interesting one, and may in fact be true, but I do not believe the Bible supports this position. Eunuchs are believed to not usually be Jewish, as castrating a male and being a castrated male were punishable offenses under the addition to the law in Deuteronomy. Can give a verse if needed. Also eunuchs are usually not spoken of as even being jewish/israelite in the Bible, usually mentioned as being other races/nationalities or slaves. (Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 is a good example). There are exceptions of course.
quote: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus mentions three types of eunuchs, going backwards:
-for the sake of heaven, these are the priests -made that way by others, these are the castrated -born that way, ?
Sounds like he's talking about the gays there. It can't be men who are born without testicles, that so rare and negligible that it isn't worth mentioning. But as you said, in roman times there were plenty of gay men skipping around. So it makes sense that they are mentioned.
What do you think about Jesus saying they were born that way, as opposed to it being a choice?
When you look at a verse like this you need to look at the greater context. Jesus has just finished speaking about divorce, giving out his standards for leaving your wife (which were much stricter than the Jewish laws at the time.) His intention was to encourage men to actually committ to their wives and become one flesh instead of divorcing them over foolish reasons). The disciples responded, saying that if marriage was that hard to maintain it would be easier to never marry at all. Jesus responds with the text you quoted, saying:
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” - Matt 19:12
The part you left out, "Let the one who is able to receive this receive it," is important because Jesus is basically saying that being a eunuch is actually somewhat ideal, if you can handle it.
The greek word for "eunuch" is a combination of the words "euné (bed) and echó (to have, hold, withhold). Literally meaning, "to withhold the bed." Source: http://biblehub.com/greek/2135.htm Therefore, all three classifications of eunuch literally mean celibate, not only the one you dubbed as "the priests."
So in summary,"Born this way" could mean that the men are either born without attraction to femininity or they were simply asexual. Either way, homosexuality is not spoken of an an alternative to being a eunuch, Jesus actually speaks of celibacy as something all should consider or "Receive" if you are able. Even if he was speaking to homosexuality it really wouldn't matter, because he's advocating a higher standard for relationships in general.
The "for the sake of heaven" part you mentioned is actually: "For the sake of the Kingdom of heaven, which is the way in which we live life right now that coincides with how heaven operates. In this context, basically the whole point Jesus is making is this:
"You may think that marriage is about yourself, but it's not. It is about giving up your right to yourself and focusing 100% on the other person, and for you (speaking to the jews who were listening) to get a divorce because you think it is a quick solution is selfish. Try harder. Love better. And, better yet, if you really want to be unselfish, become a eunuch, denying yourself even sexuality so that you can focus more on loving other people rather than seeking your own pleasure. This my friends, is truly a hard thing to do. But with God, even the impossible is...well you know the rest