People talk about the gay gene, about whether homosexuality is biological, genetic, due to social influences, or just plan choice. But yet nobody ever seems to consider the implications this has on heterosexual behavior.

Would there be a reason that the cause of one behavior would be different from the cause of the other? Would it even make sense to assume that being straight is normal and based on biology, but yet being gay would be a choice, or be due to how someone was raised? I don't think it would.

So what does this imply? For one, it implies a lot of double standards that people are using. When someone screams about how gays chose to be gay, doesn't that mean that person chose to be straight? "But I didn't," they may reply - so why do they get to say that because they're straight, but someone who's gay doesn't?

Now I'm not going to get into the religious aspect of the debate, because, well, I don't find it relevant here. What's "natural" and "normal" often has no bearing on what a religion considers "good" and "evil".

But take a minute, and look at why you like who you like. Why should it be any different for anyone else?

Yes, the reproductive organs of a male and female naturally fit together rather well (though not always). But somehow I doubt anyone has used that logic when determining their partner. "Hmmm... I like that guy, and that girl's kinda cute also, which would my parts work better with?" There's no debate, just an attraction. But back to my point, why assume it only works that way for people who are straight?

Besides, many animal species have exhibited homosexual behavior, surely there aren't two different mechanisms at work with them. Now obviously, the things that affect them aren't as complex, which, I think, helps my point.