Many adherents of naturalism believe that our genes and environment (which are factors beyond our control) are the governing forces behind our thoughts and behavior, yet these same people will make the argument that since homosexuality isn't a choice, it's therefore not immoral to act on it. Doesn't that strike you as faulty reasoning? If we take that argument to its logical conclusion, wouldn't we have to concede that no behavior is immoral?
"No one has caused himself: No one chose his genes or the environment into which he was born. Therefore no one bears ultimate responsibility for who he is and what he does." - There's No Such Thing as Free Will - The Atlantic
"If you think carefully about any decision you have made in the past, you will recognize that all of them were ultimately based on similargenetic or socialinputs to which you had been exposed. And you will also discover that you had no control over these inputs, which means that you had no free will in taking the decisions you did." Free Will Is an Illusion, so What? | Psychology Today
"According to neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky, all of our actions can be attributed to our biology. ... 'The basic theme is that we are biological creatures, which shouldn't be earth-shattering. And thus all of our behavior is a product of our biology, which also shouldn't be earth-shatteringeven though it's news to some people.'" You Have No Free Will - VICE
If all behavior is beyond our control, what does it add to the discussion to say that homosexuality is beyond our control?