@Toquemada - It's not so much the view as it is the view in spite of available evidence. Holding to a particular position when the preponderance of evidence says to change it is something that the people in the "Religious Right" do an awful lot lately. The bulk of them make up the "conservative" party in the United States, so normally the illogical positions of these conservatives line up with the illogical positions of the religious nutters.
Witness the number of people who still support President George W. Bush. I strongly suspect that he could be caught snorting heroin off of a male stripper's arse in the oval office and these people would find some way to still support him. He's been caught doing just about everything short of that. All he would need to do is say that by doing that, he was somehow foiling the terrorists.
The "war" in Iraq is going well! People believe that in spite of all of the evidence (from the United States government, no less) that it is not the case. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he was involved in planning 9/11! Again, mountains of evidence to the contrary, yet people still believe it.
Look at the number of people who say that evolution couldn't possibly happen. It's all just a lie from Satan! And yet biologists tell us it does. Physicians may wish it didn't happen, because if it didn't, the antibiotics they use today would be good enough forever.
There has been strong evidence since the 70s that male homosexuality, at least, has a large biological component. Look up the research of Dr. Ingeborg Ward. "Prenatal Stress Feminizes and Demasculinizes the Behavior of Males" was published in Science and Nature in January of 1972. It's peer-reviewed and has been cited by numerous other publications. In that article, she demonstrated that stressing a pregnant rat greatly increases the incidence of homosexual behaviour in the male offspring. More recently, there have been studies (though they tend to be unfortunately small) that show that homosexuals' brains are actually physiologically different to heterosexuals' brains. That they respond to external stimuli differently. While the higher workings of the brain are still mysterious, that indicates it's innate, not a choice.
The whole pro/anti-abortion thing is a lot less clear-cut, since the two sides utterly reject the other side's backing "evidence". I tend to lean towards pro-abortion in the first short while (I'm in favor of "Plan B" and other similar contraceptives), but towards the third trimester, I'm not sure. I'll admit that the idea of a woman getting an abortion that close to her expected delivery date kind of creeps me out, but I also recognize that that is effectively an appeal to emotion and is a formal fallacy. Can't very well be the basis for holding an anti-abortion position.
As for "liberal fundies", go ahead and submit away! I mock those who reject knowledge when it is given to them just as fiercely no matter what their political ideology.
