Obama's statement sounds like some lazy generic bullshit. I also don't think that "he's outside of the mainstream of views" is a very valuable observation. While I would definitely not call homosexuality a genetic disease, and while the genetic component of alcoholism is present to a much lesser extent than in sexuality, we could grant him that what he's trying to say is that, so far, the evidence we have suggests that your genes do not entirely determine your sexuality. He's allowing a predisposition, and chose a very bad comparative example. But. I don't think that what he was trying to say is as stupid as what he actually said.

Of course, his conclusions are a different story. Saying that homosexuality is not necessarily all about genetic make-up doesn't mean you have to think of it as a "lifestyle choice". And I don't see how any of this is relevant to banning/allowing openly gay men and women in the military. I'm sure that what the debate should focus on is the consequences of that; and I'm pretty sure the consequences will be the same regardless of whether or not being gay is a choice. After all, "people are born gay" is an obviously terrible argument to use against the ban.