First thing's first - homosexuality is not identified or caused [explicitly] by any factors of the endocrine system, i.e., no hormonal influences can non-volitionally "decide" for the person if they have sex with the same gender, e.g., it cannot dictate any injunctive behaviour of giving anal pleasure or recieving anal pleasure. This is associated to the relation of the subject and their intamate partner, but is in no way a causation. I, for example, am a homosexual. I have very few "feminine" characteristics and rarefied "masculine" ones. I am my own individual. My masculinity is identified [by myself] and integrated by the metaphysical factors, i.e., I have the qualifications of a male reproductive organ. This in no way dictates that i will prefer women, or even men. Which brings me to a second point. I am not one to ever negate scientific endeavor. However, in the field of ethics, the cause of homosexuality being supposed as hormanal or environmental is fallacious in that the "researchers" have already decided in their minds that the cause is what they are researching. Now, I understand that there are other studies done in the field of this socialogical matter, but again, the topic of whether homosexuality is ethical or not is an entirely different science -which, Ayn Rand herself stated that ethics is a science in its own. Furthermore, there is an explicit distinction between homophilia, i.e., having a love for the seame sex; and homosexuality, i.e. initiating that love via a sexual action.
As far as man is concerned, volition is a prime factor at this point. Does he (the homophile) choose to accept his feelings for the same sex, or does he ignore this and conform to the collective standards of his surroundings? What is the cause of his feelings for the same sex? Are they thereby valid feelings?
The causation of homosexuality, I cannot begin to identify due to my ignorance of psychology. But, as far as ethics is concerned, his feelings are at the very least existential, and are not subordinated as a means to knowledge in this particular context.
So, back to my very first staement. In regards to all that I have previously said, homosexuality is completely volitional. It is by choice.
I choose to be a homosexual, yes. Do not misunderstand me though.... Homophilia is not volitional (at least not in any historical proof it's not). Having attraction and affection for the same sex is, I dare say, in all cases an inocent "intuition".
An intuition is an effect of circumstance that is subconsciously calculated as reasonable and true, but frequently cannot be immediately identified, proven, or integrated with reality.
So, as an example, (an ironic one) about a year ago, my parents many times forced me to go to [Christian] church with them, and the sermon that the pastor had was in objection to homosexuality. After the message was finished, my family and I started to leave. A very good looking young man around my age passed by and immediately I had an (animalistic) sexual attraction to him as the butterflies teemed throughout my very essancce in that tiny moment. Not his values but his physique. This intuition of apathy for the females around me ( and the fact that I hardly noticed their presence), and the concentration of predilection towards the young males around me as a demonstrative factor, I would say, is an example in case of my intuition that females were undesireable and males were desireable.
This was not a choice. Neither was it an injunction learned or given by those in my environment telling me to have such a predilection.
But, what I do, what the homophile does with his feelings IS of volition... Not to imply that doing something is wrong, For the choice of productive acheivement is one of the prime standards of Objectivism! Volition is by no means negative.
If the homophile choses to fullfill his desire by having sex with another man, then he is a homosexual. I heard a primitive but effective analogy(from a gay, male aquaintence) to this subject, which goes like this: I feel that I need to have sex with men. This want is like the hunger for food. I can choose to not eat food and starve my self, or I can eat and sustain myself. I can lust for men and do nothing, thereby depraiving my mind, or I can initiate sexual intercourse, thereby sustaining my confidence and mind.
I now come to this conclusion: It is logically unethical for a homosexual to NOT have sex and achieve his values (while sharing them with his partner). It is also unethical and Highly immoral for someone to initiate a force that hinders or stops the homosexual from achieving this, e.g., neo-conservative legallity dictating that homosexuality should be forbidden, or if one were negatively acted upon because they were a homosexual.
Here is an excerpt of a comment I posted in a Facebook debate on this matter which I think should wrap my thoughts up nicely:
NO ARGUMENT can lead to homosexuality being wrong.
By its very nature, consentual homosexuality cannot be wrong (logically).
Homosexuality is not wrong, and never will be.
You will never find me at a gay parade. You will never find me trying to initiate a law that gives gays more rights than is necessary. Yes, the epicene and the rude homosexuals are of a disgusting behaviour, but, the stereotype that they are all like that is equally revolting. I say this with pure logic and experience: There is no argument against homosexuality that is without error. I am not saying that the gay paraders are right, thus contradicting myself. But, those against gays, are not only irrational, but seek mindsets as dictators. I can understand a heterosexual's disgust of gays, for I am disgusted by heterosexuality.
We all have reasoning minds. We all have the potentiality to reason. We are all human beings. Gays are not equal because being different is fine. Gays are not equal because they are the same. They are equal because they are reasoning human beings. Some are flawed, yes. But who can you claim, regardless of orientation, has not one flaw?
The religious call for us to reason and think rationally, but when it comes to the showdown....they won't be there. Of course religion is immaterial; however, sadly, the religious fools enjoy acting childish too much. They would rather you be unhappy than to be proven logically wrong.
I say this: Any man who initiates force, vis a vis his religious opinon, upon another is bastard and a parasite to society.
If you hinder a person from achieving a same-sex relationship or marrital status, you are less than a man. You are a slave to your irrationality and whims. And continue on by making everyone else a slave according to your subjctive errors.