The debate over homosexuality

I ran across this sentence in another blog that I sometimes view and I wanted to comment on it.

Homosexuality is an enduring status or quality; attacking "homosexuality" is indistinguishable from attacking homosexuals, just as attacking "being black" is indistinguishable from attacking black people.

Although I don't think homosexuality is an immoral sin and don't care what sexual perferences you may entertain, this phrase is one of those oft-repeated saying that means nothing. There are a lot of qualities that are enduring which people find immoral. To name one, pedophilia (no, I am not comparing homosexuals and pedophiles). But it does seem to be an enduring status or quality. It's hard to "cure" these sickos just as it's hard to convert a homosexual to a heterosexual. So what if a quality is enduring if that quality is immoral?

The difference, of course, is that some believe that homosexuality is amoral (as do I) and pedophila is immoral (as do I). It doesn't make any difference that each quality is enduring and resistant to change or remedy.

Let's not kid ourselves that the opprobrium assigned to homosexuality can be dissolved with hollow slogans like "Homosexuality is enduring, it's just like race!" to convince the public that homosexuals are not gross or immoral sinners, one must address the underlying morality of the act.