Homosexuality is a sexual deviation. It is a perversion. It is an abomination and against the natural order of things. To suggest that it is as innocuous as eye color is the bizarre argument. It's BEYOND bizarre.
I think the point that was made by TigerWench (and definitely the point that I was making) is that genetic defects aren't always "wrong," per se. Technically, blue eyes are a genetic defect from thousands of years ago. However, that doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't make it something that needs to be cured.
When you use the word "cure," you're assuming that it's some sort of unacceptable or immoral malady that no one wants. As is seen by many gay people (and people with blue eyes), that's just not the case. Maybe you don't want them to have it, but they seem fine with it.
Thus, just as you can't force a "cure" for blue-eyed people, you can't force a "cure" for gays. Genetic or not, it's their choice to remain gay. And it's your choice to view it as immoral, but you can't expect other people to accept your subjective view of what is right and wrong.
I don't give a fiddly fuck what they do in private. But it's not in private. They want to have the right to flaunt their fucking sickness in public. They want to be able to identify themselves in public as queers and suffer no consequences for that. Sorry, that will never fly with me.
I don't mean to be hyper-technical about the language used, but you refer to "they" as if all gays act alike. I personally know (and I'm sure you do as well) several gays who are not flamboyant, who do not talk about their sex lives in public, who do not even make their homosexuality known to the public, etc.
Even if they do, it's their right to free speech; and it's your right to free speech to express your disgust over their lifestyle. However, I think your subjective morality concerning homosexuality has no bearing on whether they should be allowed in the military. The fact that you view them as sinners doesn't necessarily mean they will perform poorly in the military. This is supported by the fact that many sinners are already in the military and appear to conform just fine to the military code, as is evidenced by Pell City Tiger's post and the RAND report.
You start there and the next thing you've got the corpse fuckers demanding their right to be sick fucks in public. And then the child molesters claim they were born that way and should have the right to pursue their dreams. Nope. You have to draw moral lines. This is one of them.
Corpses and children can not consent to sexual intercourse (technically, children can say "yes," but legally they're incapable of consenting). We're talking about sex between two consenting adults. I find it slightly appalling that you would compare a homosexual to a child molester. You may view both as immoral, but you at least have to recognize the non-consensual nature of one act as opposed to the consensual nature of the other. I'd rather leave others the free will to do as they wish than to compare them to people who force their will upon others.