Objective Morals vs. Subjective Morals

Whilst a "gay gene" hasn't been found, there are common biological markers in homosexual people that have been linked together. http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.the-scientist.com...-/ I'd argue that social factors can play a role in some cases, but in most cases they don't. After all, the social environment of the American Bible Belt or Saudi Arabia don't seem likely to "turn" someone gay, yet gays exist in both places. As for being born gay, all the homosexual people I've known have never "chosen" to be gay. I had a girlfriend in high school for nearly a year and less than a year after she broke up with me, she turned out to be a lesbian. And looking back on it, it definitely did make sense. Obviously, personal anecdotes don't win an argument but I can say with confidence that over 95% of homosexual people didn't choose to be gay, they simply are. From an evolutionary standpoint, I do agree that homosexuality isn't natural. After all, the whole theory behind evolution is effectively based around survival and homosexual relationships don't reproduce (at least natural anyway). However, I will remind you that thousands of animals show blatant homosexual behavior, meaning it isn't a human invention by any means. It can also be traced back for thousands of years, possibly even to the original evolution of humanity. If homosexuality is a concept that has been with the human race for thousands of years, what exactly makes it unnatural anymore? Moving onto your next point, we as a society are mostly beyond the point of arguing whether homosexuality is moral or not. At this point, it doesn't really matter because it has turned into a human right/equality issue rather than a moral issue. Once again, this is due to social evolution. We believed homosexuality was immoral for over a thousand years due to the rise of Christianity and later, Islam. However, as Christianity (not so much Islam) has become less important for society, so has some of its teachings. While a lot of it's core tenets are still important parts of society, other parts are simply seen as outdated and simply don't belong in the modern world. This a perfect example of how societal evolution affect what we believe is natural, moral or right. I'll end this with some points of my own. 1. Absolute truth argues that every human has the exact same concept of what is right and what is wrong. 2. Absolute truth argues that regardless of what we believe in, there is a default worldview that would continue even if everyone believed otherwise. 3. This can be debunked by the fact that different societies over history have had different concepts of right and wrong. 4. It can also be debunked by the fact that humans have such diverse points of views on big issues such as homosexuality, drugs, capital punishment and other social issues. 5. Technically, a society governed by absolute truth should have much less crime and everyone should agree with each other on major issues. The fact that murder, rape, child abuse and theft (hate is a human emotion) are all wrong IS simply due to the fact that society, for thousands of years, has made those actions wrong. The fact that we have different opinions on so many different topics means that objective morality doesn't exist, regardless of what a religion might say. Thanks for the debate.