One argument used by those who think homosexual behavior is normal, therefore moral, therefore society should embrace it, is that we can see clear evidence of homosexual behavior in other members of the animal kingdom. Here is an teaser for a longer opinion piece that devestates that argument.
" I soon learned what Benjamin Franklin meant when he described the eagle as a bird of "bad moral character." With two eaglets in the nest and not enough food to go around, mamma allows the weakest eaglet to die. She then cannibalizes the dead eaglet and feeds it to the survivor. Was this natural or unnatural? Is this moral animal behavior that we should emulate? How do we know? ....
How do we know, indeed? I can think of quite a few behaviors of my pet dog that would also fit this argement. Shouldn't we at least aspire to better behavior than our pets?
Even before the question is asked, my personal belief is that homosexuals come to their orientation in various ways, some genetic, some chemical/biological, some environmental/emotional. This is also true for folks who prefer sex with little kids. The fact that the orientation stems from some reason that is difficult to cure does not in any way make the behavior ok.
One opinion piece the other day asked whether we should be asking homosexuals to give up any hope of sexual intimacy during their lifetimes if that is the only way they can express it. This argument fails the same way. Society has to ask many folks to give up some kinds of really cool stuff they'd like to do, if the consequences are detrimental to the rest of us.