I've had this argument before. At my synogogue's religious school, eighth through tenth grades were ethics and morality. Discussions tended to wander all over the place, and one day we ended up at the question "Jews tend to test higher on intelligence tests than other groups. Is it genetic?" Similarly, the articles ask almost the same question, and make the similar assumption that there are only two basic schools of thought on the issue, nature and nurture. This is nonsense, of course, because there are almost no real scientists (as opposed to pop scientists) that make this opposition anymore. Almost all the time it's going to be nature and nurture. Interestingly enough, the minorities in question rarely always fall into either camp. There tends to be fervent supporters of each camp within the minority (or the majority, for that matter). You have your "it's nature!" gays, your "it's nurture!" gays, your "it's nature!" moral fundamentalists (for lack of a less-loaded term), and your "it's nurture!" moral fundamentalists.
Purely from a philosophical/political perspective (and, due to the lack of conclusive scientific evidence, there is no other perspective possible at this time), I think the "it's nature!" gays are in the wrong camp. Yes, there are short-term political gains from classifying homosexuality as a genetic factor rather than a "lifestyle choice." The theory, as I understand it, is that if you tell everyone "Hey! It's ok! I'm not contagious!" then they'll accept you into their houses and all will be sweetness and light once more. It doesn't work like that. The real reaction will be either "So, you guys are like, genetically cursed? Well, we can't let you breed or anything, then" or else "I'm sorry for you. Very, very sorry. It must be terribly tragic to have been so unluckily chosen by random DNA mutations." In both, you have an almost total lack of sympathy.
The nurture camp isn't that much safer. If it's proven to be just a lifestyle choice or upbringing, this leads to automatic stigmatization of the people (or people's parents) in question by people who disapprove. You can change, after all, so why don't you?
The only real way to get tolerance is the hard way. People meeting people, and saying "Hey, you mean you're gay? But you look so normal!" This isn't easy, and it isn't pleasant, and it isn't quick. Probably, the people in the next couple generations won't have the necessary thought-flexibility to make the mental changes it would require. But eventually, tolerance will come. Hopefully.
The other issue I'd like to (quickly) put up a few sentences about is the idea of science-as-establishment-tool. Several of the articles, especially Terry's, seem to have the idea that science creates bigotry: "By now, we have voluminous evidence to show that science and medicine have played a big part in the making of homophobia." Frankly, this is nonsense. Science, by definition, is unable to create bigotry. It is a tool for explaining known facts, and nothing more. Any science that makes a moral judgment is not science at all, but a human's beliefs cloaking themselves in pseudo-scientific methods. As responsible citizens, we have a duty to demand rigorous application of the scientific method whenever any study purports to show something about an issue as weighty as homosexuality or gender differences.