You suggest: 'But your right about the fact that "nurture also plays a substantial role" as does predetermination, but we seem to understand a lot more about predetermination than we do about nurtured attractions and sexualities.'

I would argue that there is plenty known - or at least speculated about - in the area of 'nurtured attraction and sexualities'. However most of this is being rejected on the 'politically driven' grounds that homosexual attraction is a given. In the secular community we see the rejection of all Freud's arguments about homosexuality being a phase which most grow out of, despite that being an experience of many. Within the Evangelical community, Leanne Payne's 'The Broken Image' and John and Paula Sandford's 'The Transformation of the Inner Man' both testify to examples of radical alterations to sexual orientation as a result of prayer and quite directive counselling. I am also personally in contact with people whose primary sexuality was and remains homosexual, but who seem to have reasonably successful marriages (with variable degrees of knowledge from their spouses). Which is not to say there aren't issues, but it does seem they can be worked through for some. Please don't hear me as suggesting that hetrosexual marriage is the answer for all!

My own position is that homosexual and BL attraction is a form of disability - the fact that it militates against having children is the clearest evidence that it constitutes a 'disease' in the sense that it prevent a major feature of normal biological functioning. I suspect that there may be a genetic factor that predisposes some to become drawn to this behaviour, and that there is also a nurture factor in anyone's final orientation. It is foolish to argue for one or the other exclusively, and the mixture means that this has no moral content.

Quite enough for now!