An interesting (and convincing?) argument

I spoke with a woman yesterday who quoted a sermon she just recently heard that was anti-homosexuality, and the argument is the most convincing I have heard yet... though of course I still do not agree with it... it is convincing nonetheless.

Her pastor preached that homosexuality *is* genetic and "natural" (created by nature).... but that doesn't mean you should do it. Alcoholism is also genetic and anger/selfishness/greed/survival instinct are all also natural... but that doesnt mean you should be/do those things. It is a great argument because it uses what the "liberal/progressive" pro-homosexuality side often uses as its argument, that homosexuality is natural, LGBT people are created by God as LGBT people. But this preacher twists that argument in a very clever way.

I was totally caught off guard by the logic of this argument and did not have an appropriate comeback. Now that I've thought about it, here is what I have initially come up with as a response... but I'm interested in hearing your ideas too.

Yes all of the things you mentioned are indeed natural, but the gauge to whether or not a certain "natural" behavior/atttiude/way of being/way of living should or should not be practiced is whether or not it is hurting yourself or others. Alcoholism hurts the self and the other, anger/selfishness/greed/survival instinct arguably do as well. But homosexuality (just like heterosexuality) doesnt inherently hurt the self or other. The mispractice of sexuality (whether homo- or hetero-) is what hurts the self and other: cheating, promiscuity, unprotected sex, abuse, nonconsent, etc etc.