"Born That Way" Is A Poor Argument In Favor of Gay Rights Compared to Personal Liberty Arguments

I agree that liberty is a strong argument for gay rights. However, a government isn't meant to put liberty before morality and gay rights is a purely legal matter in the end. If they believed in liberty, incest where no baby is produced wouldn't be illegal, but it is. If they valued liberty over morality, they wouldn't ban marijuana yet allow alcohol and tobacco. The truth is law is a fishy subject if you think you can rely purely on liberty when discussing one's rights.Liberty is nice, I like liberal people. However liberalism only works when there is not a huge conflict to solve. In this scenario we have a huge conflict between the moral code of pro-gay rights activists and the moral code of the anti-gay rights activists. Technically it's neither liberal to allow gays to marry and engage in public displays of affection if a huge proportion of the populations are both disgusted by it and think it sends you to a place of eternal punishment. On the other hand, we have the issue that to not allow gays to be open about their relationships, we are impeding their beliefs being met. So either way a significant amount of people are not experience liberty, thus I do not see how liberty is anywhere near as strong as the 'born to be gay' argument.The truth is this, the fundamental reasoning behind the religious view that being homosexual is wrong is that they believe everyone is born to be heterosexual. However, if you asked a heterosexual to try to be gay, you would see that they were clearly born to be straight. Equally, it's just as logical to understand that if you ask a homosexual to try to be straight, they clearly will not be able to change their sexuality. You don't even need a single scientific fact to prove the logic behind it. The essential issue comes with the valid argument from their side that clearly we would not have reproduced if being gay was not a choice. This is where another level of logic (what I call abstract logic, as opposed to standard logic) has to be applied to fully understand the reason that we have reproduced over time. The first clear concept is that more people have always been straight than gay in any population because any bisexual individual would be bound to have tried out the opposite gender if their friends did, leaving the minority of pure homosexuals to not understand why they stay soft with a woman and the lesbians to not understand why they never were able to get wet or create a lubricant when a guy tried to engage in sex with them. Another layer of logic makes us realise that when humans began to talk and reason, they must have realised clearly that males having sex with females was the clear, indisputable cause for pregnancy (although this understanding seems not so apparent in some tribal regions of Africa). So what I think happened was this, humans began to experiment their sexuality the moment they were able to reason with language and understand what sex was (his is far before civilisation began and religion was even a concept). Thus, I am sure many group sex orgies were arranged. In an orgy it would have been extremely easy for gays to check out all the guys around them and get aroused by that as they pummelled away at a female partner, it's simple logic that if they went anal on a female and looked at all the guy's around them it would ultimately feel no different than if they were pummelling a guy. thus, during this time of huge population growth and variation everyone was able to have sex because we realised it was more fun to share each other than possess one another, probably why we no longer worried about evolving stronger and instead only the ones able to reason and work in teams survived (in answer to the commonly raised question by creationists as to why we are weaker than chimpanzees yet smarter). Over time religion came into play and the realisation that gay sex was a waste of whatever mysterious white liquid came from a man which could be used to reproduce in stead, I believe this to be the fundamental reason that even in ancient scripture homosexuality begun to be frowned upon and heterosexuality, especially the form where one man hunts down several females, was far more acceptable. This s also why lesbians probably have always been more acceptable than male gays, and why society is far more accepting of lesbians than women are of gays. The reason is this, the woman became the more beautiful gender, designed to attract a powerful and dominant mate, their duty was to attract anyone and anything that would choose to reproduce with them, even other females, especially if doing so entertained men. The man became the less beautiful but more aggressive gender, a man's duty became clearly to hunt down the finest women and to engage in sex with them. Men needn't care if a woman was a lesbian as long as they could overpower her, but the issue with a woman trying to hit on a gay is, no matter how hard they try, how nice they get, how flirty they acted or how much cleavage they showed, the guy wasn't interested, thus an instinctive repugnance to male gays evolved in most human beings.I know what I wrote is just a theory (although I regard it as fact) but what I have tried to show is a rather unfalsifiable method of explaining that in history there were gays and that gays were born that way by simple logical reasoning, so if they choose to deny evidence with the unfalsifiable concept of God we could refute that with the unfalsifiable logical progression of the human race by what really does make perfect sense.You can either rebut my points or explain your own in a clearer light if I have failed to address them correctly.