You're wrong. If you look at this list you can see, that a big number of the deaths can be accounted to famines, produced by completely wrong decisions. Namely the big leap forward in China was a big desaster. Communists killings were mostly against political enemies. Also the different facism killed people mostly because of their race and secondly because they were on a different political side (communists and social democrats mostly). In the atlantic slave trade most people were harmed simply because of profits. Most wars were fought over power. So this leaves the number of people killed from atheist because they were theists very small in comparison to all the other reasons.

My point was that people can still coose what religion they believe in (provided they weren't indocrrinated from birth). There is no such thing as a genetic/psycological christian. Sexuality is different.

It is interesting how cultural norms end up changing over time.  I am of the understanding that gluttony, centuries ago, was considered far more offense than even things in the sexual area.  But now, you see gluttony as a lifestyle norm in American society.  Coveting ends up being advertising, and people sowed with a LOT of discontent.  Hey, I guess it is ok, because mass production means that EVERYONE gets something they want.

I really don't see how you could be so sure. Why is one person drawn to one religion over another? Probably because it rings more with them than the others do

This just seems horribly biased.

I think religion is only partly to blame here. Sure, the abrahamic religions (christianity, islam, judaism) have horrible stances to homosexuality. But that's only one part. As someone (EDIT: it was richardhutnik) pointed out in this thread, many people care far more for homosexuality than for other sins. So the religion is only an explanation for their hate against homosexuality. Also non-religious people can hate gay people.

I could make a similar argument for politics being genetic by asking why a person is drawn to his political party of choice . If you widen your definition that much, everything becomes genetics.

Yes, I'm probably biased, but you're most likely biased as well. Let's hope that the clash of our biases is a thought provoking one.

right as you may be, don't bother with it.  You can't argue with people believe that. 

I can work with that.

It is possible, that some people are inherent more religious than other. But people are mostly choose the religion that is most common in their region and/or is the religion of their parents. If a religious guy is born in China he becomes a Buddhist, is he located in the USA he becomes a Christian and so on. Also different religions have different takes on homosexuality. The abrahamic religions are against it, but that's not usually so. Also even members of abrahamic religions can accept or tolerate homosexuality. Also some gay people are christians.

So, in no way it's predetermined that the father disowns the homosexual son, as the son is homosexual. The father had a choice. Even as a christian.

Yep, but even as you said, even if he weren't religious, he could be anti-homosexuality, even a homophobe. That also would be something I would think is inherent and can only be unlearned so to speak.

So in the end, all is inherent, some things are just learned or unlearned.