The Toronto Star, like other papers, finds a neuroscientist who thinks the new study "should erode the moral judgments often made against homosexual preferences and rebut any argument that it is a mere a lifestyle choice." Well, yes. But then what?

The argument that homosexuality has to be accepted because it was biologically determined was always extremely shortsighted, exactly for this reason.

However, the article still sides with the idea that because homosexuality is biologically determined, it is not a choice and therefor has to be accepted by society. That's a strange viewpoint, and one that is at least as short-sighted. We already know that many psychological conditions are rooted in brain chemistry and/or genetics, such as ADHD, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we - as a society - decide that it should be treated as a disease or not.

Shall we conclude that people genetically predisposed to get cancer should not receive treatment, 'cos it is not their decision to get cancer?

The yardstick for treating any deviation from "normalcy" remains whether the individual and the society around him or her suffer from the deviation. Whether or not the cause is personal choice, genetics or environment is absolutely irrelevant.