If I follow you, you're suggesting that these Asian and African societies you have in mind would be more accepting of LGBT rights if they were convinced that it

If I follow you, you're suggesting that these Asian and African societies you have in mind would be more accepting of LGBT rights if they were convinced that it was something biological and immutable. I present the counter example of birth sex, which is quite genetic and practically immutable for most people. Do those same countries afford women and men equal freedoms and opportunities, considering the biological nature of the trait? A model individualist society would. A model collectivist society might not. With my collectivist hat on: Whether or not something is "a choice" doesn't have any bearing on whether it is good for society. Even a biologically, incorrigibly gay person should reproduce sexually, for the good of the collective. I can speak to this pretty confidently as somebody living in Utah and raised Mormon: The biology argument does not matter. Religious people acknowledge that some are born with predispositions, even strong ones, to commit certain sins. They consider them challenges to be overcome. They absolutely do not exempt you from the responsibilities of a member of that society. Like it or not, sexual actions and lifestyles are a choice. Muslims and Christians know this. Fighting the biology battle might lose us ground (to the extent that any evidence at all comes up against it), and it will never gain us any.