You're the one that brought it up, surely you have some sort of explanation as to why you think it's a "biological error."
This is a different question.
You originally asked why it happened, and to that I have no conclusive answer.
As to why I think born-homosexuality is a biological error:
IMO born-homosexuality is a biological malfunction, unlike race or gender, and that makes all the difference to me.
I say that I view born-homosexuality is some kind of error because a homosexual woman's brain interprets female pheromones as though it were a man and not a woman. Also, a homosexual man's brain interprets male pheromones as though it were a woman and not a man. One Example
The resulting instinct of a homosexual woman is to procreate with another woman, and of a homosexual man to procreate with another man. Obviously, the vagina does not produce sperm nor can the anis incubate a child. It is apparent to me these instincts are operating contrary to the biological functions of physical gender, and therefore I observe some kind of error occurring.
Please note that I did not nor am I claiming that homosexuality is a psychosexual disorder. The APA basis it’s diagnostic criteria on a person’s ability to function in society, and my opinion is not based on a person’s ability to function in society, but on biological congruency.
I do not support gay marriage or civil unions because I view homosexuality as being incongruent with the purpose and function of marriage just as it is incongruent with the purpose and function of physical gender.
As I understand it today, the gay marriage argument removes procreation and raising children from the primary purpose of marriage, and I believe that is damaging to a society.
Der der derrrrrr. Brilliant, Einstein.
Precisely my point.
Why should we deny people ANYTHING based on something they have no control over? Even if it IS a biological error, what does it have to do with marriage?
If we were to look at gay marriage in a vacuum, I wouldn't really care about it.
It doesn't exist in a vacuum, though, and the modern pro-gm argument removes the procreation of healthy children from the purpose of marriage, and it is this which harms the sociological institution of marriage.
But you don't support banning infertile people from getting married in the first place? If not, why not?
The government's vested interest in marriage is promoting couples raising children.
Any couple not raising children is of no concern to the state.
This rules out the majority of gay couples.
Of the gay and strate couples raising children, the state has a vested interest in the health and safety of those children. This means the state has no interest, in fact has grounds to oppose, familial unions and second marriages with small children. Reasonable opposition to the step-parent dynamic rules out the majority of gay couples with pre-existing children.
The rare exception of a lesbian couple buying an exotic procedure to produce sperm from a woman, or another rare exception of a transgendered woman halting medication so as to conceive a child with a man, do not come remotely close to establishing a compelling interest of the state to promote these unions.