George Tait wrote:
According to him, conservatives and Christians once argued that homosexuality was a genetic trait when gays were arguing that it was a lifestyle choice. I'm calling bollocks on that one.
What he writes is true, to a degree. To quite a small degree.
In the 1970s and 80s, many homophobes were still arguing that homosexuality was a mental illness, and that it should be repressed or medicated. It was also still believed that you could catch teh gayz if, for example, you'd been seduced at a young age by an older homosexual 'predator'. And many people claimed that homosexuality was just a phase that everyone went through and everyone grew out of.
Gay groups combatted these myths by asserting that their homosexuality had not been forced on them — they had, to an extent, chosen it (or, more precisely, chosen to assume it). Equally, the bisexual movement resisted the idea that sexuality was binary and static. It refused to accept that sexual orientation was determined by anything other than an individual's own more-or-less-consciously held desires. Less significantly, a small number of militant activists, especially women, chose to become 'political homosexuals' as a protest against heteronormativity and the inequalities in sexual relationships between men and women.
Resistance to the idea of a genetic component to homosexuality persisted well into the 1990s. This was largely due to a fear that if there were a 'gay gene' it could be identified and modified in the foetus, thus eliminating homosexuality altogether. The tables have indeed now turned, ironically again partly as a response to the arguments of homophobes.