The argument that people should be allowed to do what they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone is harder to win when some people have deeply held religious beliefs that having sex with someone of the same sex is literally the work of the devil.
I agree historically if one engaged in homosexual behaviour they were considered a sinner and punished for the behaviour, it was the behaviour that was traditionally punished, rather than being homosexual, or bisexual, as these categories were not thought about originally. Then when people started to categorise themselves according to their sexualities, homosexuals (and sometimes bisexuals) were persecuted.
I agree ‘born this way’ can lead to a kind of begrudging acceptance in some countries, in others it seems to make little difference. Moreover, it does lead to the idea that homosexuals have a kind of intersex condition. For example, one of the first gay men in mid 19th century to argue for public acceptance of gay men Karl Heinrich Ulrichs argued that gay men had a "A female psyche confined in a male body" and that they were a third sex called "urnings”. Then there was Magnus Hirschfeld who argued homosexuals were a type of hermaphrodite, in order to gain acceptance of gay men. In the late 1940’s gay men were given male hormones in order to try to make them attracted to women, all it did was make them seek more sex with other men, so they shifted to giving them female hormones to curb their sex drive. The point is it always leads to a ‘cure’ which inevitably involves some kind of ‘sex change’, which is what see in places like Iran, and now in other countries with gender ideology. So I don’t think it really does lead to real genuine acceptance at all, at best I think it leads to a superficial acceptance based on pity.
I'd like to see more on it too. Why is there a correlation between gender non-conformity and homosexuality? Not sensible shoes and a lack of makeup but actual female masculinity and male femininity? Why do we see this in the literal "only gay in the village", in countries with no gay representation? Is it learned behaviour? Who from? Are butch lesbians more homosexual than feminine ones, is there a difference physically or psychologically?
These things can be explained in ways other than them being innate. From a developmental point of view one could say that early positive experiences, conditioning (including eroticising things not out of choice), socialisation and the prevailing culture can influence the development of personality, likes, dislikes etc., and how one views one’s self. Personality development can also influence how comfortable one is with conformity. Autism can also impact how comfortable one is with conformity.
I think it is also important to remember that the focus is usually on gay men. In ancient societies, women were just considered property, so no thought at all were given to whether they were attracted to men or not, they were treated the same as any other woman. For men it has always been different. For example, in ancient Rome men could have sex with men without stigma, as long the man doing the penetrating was of a higher social rank than the man he was penetrating, the stigma was placed entirely on the man being penetrated. There are other societies too where male homosexual behaviour was widespread and accepted, as long as it was performed under certain circumstances where social hierarchies were preserved. In other cultures men were placed in a third category, where men could have sex with them and still be considered heterosexual, e.g. ladyboys, Hijra etc.
Obviously the next question is "does it matter? " or even "should it matter?" but I personally would like to know if I really was born this way, and if I wasn't, I'd like to know what caused it, even if I'd never change anything.
Arguing that we can't help it works better than arguing we should do as we please.
I don’t think it should matter, I also think that looking for a cause indicates that there is a problem that needs to be solved, and I don’t think there is a problem that needs to be solved. I think sometimes an argument may be harder but works out better in the long run, as it doesn’t lead to ‘cures’, it leads to true acceptance, rather than begrudging superficial acceptance based on pity.