• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is homosexuality by choice or by birth?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I certainly do not blame gay people for being gay, but they have a condition who's cause needs to be rememedied and for which they should get some help. The church I used to go to even had a group for men recovering from a gay lifestyle and a lot of those guys eventually married women and had kids.

Let's see what the medical community has to say about this assertion:
What Mental Health And Medical Experts
Say About "Curing" Gays

The psychological, medical and psychiatric establishments agree that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and that so-called "reparative therapy" aimed at altering gay peoples' orientations does not work and may, in fact, be harmful.

The following are excerpts from position papers on this subject by the leading professional associations:
American Psychiatric Association

The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone `reparative therapy' relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed ... the APA opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or "conversion" therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation. 1

There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of "reparative therapy" as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's latest comprehensive Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders (1989). 2
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Dude, you misquoted. You're only supposed to quote the first person, not the one you agree with.

HoP's head is so far up his ass with his "you're all ignorant" post that he's tasting his breakfast twice.

- M4H

Anybody can fling around clever insults, bro. Try taking part in a rational discussion with an opened mind for a change.

Never going to happen. That would require him actually having something to contribute to the civil and mature conversations that he ends up sh|tting all over.

If I recall, you're the one who blew his stack a half-dozen posts ago. Grow up, get over that whore you dated and move on with your life. Sure, I got hurt when I was younger by a woman. But for fvck's sake, stop dragging your Linkin-Park-caliber Angst into every god damn post you make.

Oh, and try reading some of the earlier posts; you know, before this degenerated into a hellhole.

- M4H

Seriously. Fvck off and die. Please?

Come do it yourself, or would you miss the Dashboard Confessional tour? :roll:

My first comment was in regard to your well-known sweet tooth for that class of honey. NOT Chelsea. STOP TWISTING EVERYTHING ANYONE SAYS INTO A VERBAL ATTACK AGAINST YOU.

- M4H
 
Actually, there are studies showing differences between the brains of gay and straight men.

There's also evidence that lesbianism may be iatrogenic, that is determined during gestation by the amount of testosterone exposure, as shown by lesbians typically having masculine finger length ratios:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695142.stm

I googled for a references to my first point above:

Differences in Gay Brain Structure Announced
Tuesday, July 18th 2000

AUSTIN, Tx. -- Researchers from the University of Texas announced on Friday that there are quantifiable differences in the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals, lending more weight to a growing body of evidence that suggests sexual orientation is hard-wired in individuals from birth.

The Austin American-Statesman reports a series of tests have revealed that brain structures of gay men and lesbians are somehow "hyper-masculinized" during development and respond differently to auditory stimuli than do the brains of heterosexual men and women.

Contrary to the cultural stereotypes that portray gay men as less masculine, the study suggests that gay males actually appear to be more masculine and better endowed physically than their heterosexual counterparts. Researchers said that this was "most likely due to increased male hormones circulating in their brains during development."

"A good way to describe the data from the homosexual males is that they appeared to be hyper-masculinized," said Craig Champlin, an associate professor and co author of the study.

Dennis McFadden, the other author of the study, told the American-Statesman, "Our research reveals that it isn't just parts of the body that are hyper masculinized in homosexual males, but the brain as well."

"Logic suggests that the degree of exposure to androgen -- the male sex hormone - is somehow involved in the production of homosexuality," McFadden said, "and our auditory results are generally in accord with that idea."


"Gay males appear...hyper-masculinized."

Overview of this issue
> Gay Origins
Other Data Lounge stories
> Texas
Send this article to a friend
McFadden and Champlin said they and their team measured otacoustic emissions, or sounds made by the inner ear, of heterosexuals and gay males and lesbians and that the results found "marked differences between the sexes," the female response being much more acute.

Generally, said McFadden, women have more and stronger inner ear emissions, but the auditory potentials of gay and bisexual women "were shifted in the male direction," he said. "The implication is that some brain structures were masculinized at some time during development."

The paper, published in the current issue of the Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology (ear, nose and throat), said the answer may be found in different "magnitudes and/or timing" of androgen (male sex hormone) exposure in different areas of the brain.

"It is also possible that the amounts available are the same in heterosexual and non-heterosexual subjects, but that -- for whatever reason -- some subjects or some brain sites, are hypersensitive to the androgen (testosterone) levels present during some stage(s) in early development," the American-Statesman quotes the research paper.

Friday's results were a follow up to similar findings McFadden and Champlin published in March 1998. Prior research by the team found differences in the inner ears of lesbians and bisexuals, again noting that this aspect of their hearing had been masculinized. Another physical difference the authors documented had to do with finger length.

"Physiological differences of this sort are highly unlikely to be caused by differences in experience or upbringing," said McFadden.
-- C. Barillas, Editor
 
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Nik
Well, let's just say that until I see empirical physical evidence that homosexuality is a result of a genetic "feature," we'll say, I will continue to look elsewhere for my personal belief in why humans are breaking laws of nature. Sorry to offend anyone -especially one person in particular that I know this is going to really piss off, but I'm sorry. That's how it is for me, since nothing has ever been physically and empirically proven.
Nik (and others) there's evidence that genetics influence orientation, but do not dictate it. That's about the long and short of it. You just cannot say it's 100% one way or the other. There have been studies of twins and although some are completely flawed in methodology, some present some very interesting data. This one in particular showed that there's a 31.6% chance that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be as well. Again, not abolute, but certianly higher than the indidence for fraternal twins (sharing the same womb and upbringing) and just plain old sibling (occupy same womb at different times and occupy same household).

"Tendency, not tyranny." as one researcher put it.

But I think there are just too many other factors that come into play here. Perhaps one twin is paid more attention to. Perhaps something embarrassing happens to one twin at some point in their life. I just beleive there are too many factors that come into play that you can't just say "well if one's gay, then the other has to be gay."
I'm going to just have to call you deeply and irretrievably stupid at this point. I'm going to continue "denigrating" you if you cannot be bothered to read the article I linked or my post regarding said article.

well no, i didn't read the article, but please point out where something I said was stupid. Perhaps I was just arguing about the wrong thing? Regardless, this debate is over. There's no point in arguing with a troll...maybe you should go talk to M4H
No, there's no point in arguing with someone WHO DOESN'T BOTHER TO READ WHAT YOU POST. nakedfrog even bolded the parts you missed for you.

so it was the fact that I said "if one's gay, the other's gay?" Your data was that if one id twin is gay, then there's a 31.6% chance the other is. Is that number high or low to you? I'm guessing most people think that they would both be gay because they are identical twins, but that number is pretty low in that case
 
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Nik
Well, let's just say that until I see empirical physical evidence that homosexuality is a result of a genetic "feature," we'll say, I will continue to look elsewhere for my personal belief in why humans are breaking laws of nature. Sorry to offend anyone -especially one person in particular that I know this is going to really piss off, but I'm sorry. That's how it is for me, since nothing has ever been physically and empirically proven.
Nik (and others) there's evidence that genetics influence orientation, but do not dictate it. That's about the long and short of it. You just cannot say it's 100% one way or the other. There have been studies of twins and although some are completely flawed in methodology, some present some very interesting data. This one in particular showed that there's a 31.6% chance that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be as well. Again, not abolute, but certianly higher than the indidence for fraternal twins (sharing the same womb and upbringing) and just plain old sibling (occupy same womb at different times and occupy same household).

"Tendency, not tyranny." as one researcher put it.

But I think there are just too many other factors that come into play here. Perhaps one twin is paid more attention to. Perhaps something embarrassing happens to one twin at some point in their life. I just beleive there are too many factors that come into play that you can't just say "well if one's gay, then the other has to be gay."
I'm going to just have to call you deeply and irretrievably stupid at this point. I'm going to continue "denigrating" you if you cannot be bothered to read the article I linked or my post regarding said article.

well no, i didn't read the article, but please point out where something I said was stupid. Perhaps I was just arguing about the wrong thing? Regardless, this debate is over. There's no point in arguing with a troll...maybe you should go talk to M4H
No, there's no point in arguing with someone WHO DOESN'T BOTHER TO READ WHAT YOU POST. nakedfrog even bolded the parts you missed for you.

Pimp: I think it's nurture.

Fausto: It's both.

Pimp: I think it's nurture.

Fausto: No really, it's both (/links article)

Pimp: I think it's nurture.

Fausto: No. Really. It's both. Here's an article on twin studies showing a correlation, but not an absolute one.

Pimp: That article has big words that make my head go all hurty. It think it's nurture.

Fausto: You're an idiot.

Pimp: OMGURTROLLZORZING ME!!!!11!!!!

hahaha...i said i didn't read the article, not that it had big words. And sorry, I haven't been following every post that you've made, so i didn't realize you were a proponent of both
 
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Dude, you misquoted. You're only supposed to quote the first person, not the one you agree with.

HoP's head is so far up his ass with his "you're all ignorant" post that he's tasting his breakfast twice.

- M4H

Anybody can fling around clever insults, bro. Try taking part in a rational discussion with an opened mind for a change.

Never going to happen. That would require him actually having something to contribute to the civil and mature conversations that he ends up sh|tting all over.

If I recall, you're the one who blew his stack a half-dozen posts ago. Grow up, get over that whore you dated and move on with your life. Sure, I got hurt when I was younger by a woman. But for fvck's sake, stop dragging your Linkin-Park-caliber Angst into every god damn post you make.

Oh, and try reading some of the earlier posts; you know, before this degenerated into a hellhole.

- M4H

Seriously. Fvck off and die. Please?

Come do it yourself, or would you miss the Dashboard Confessional tour? :roll:

My first comment was in regard to your well-known sweet tooth for that class of honey. NOT Chelsea. STOP TWISTING EVERYTHING ANYONE SAYS INTO A VERBAL ATTACK AGAINST YOU.

- M4H

I know you, you fvck. You and I have plotted and schemed many-a-time over IM as to what to post in certain threads. I know how you think. I guess I should half expect someone so ruthless to turn on "friends" just to satisfy their lust for blood.
 
Originally posted by: DougK62
I don't think people choose to be gay, but I don't think they're born that way either. IMO, it's probably environmental influences when they're young.

So therefore its by choice.
 
If it's by choice, than it's a choice anyone can make. You should thus be able to sit there right now and actively choose to be attracted to a member of the same sex. Seriously try it for like 5 min, see what happens.
 
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Nik
Well, let's just say that until I see empirical physical evidence that homosexuality is a result of a genetic "feature," we'll say, I will continue to look elsewhere for my personal belief in why humans are breaking laws of nature. Sorry to offend anyone -especially one person in particular that I know this is going to really piss off, but I'm sorry. That's how it is for me, since nothing has ever been physically and empirically proven.
Nik (and others) there's evidence that genetics influence orientation, but do not dictate it. That's about the long and short of it. You just cannot say it's 100% one way or the other. There have been studies of twins and although some are completely flawed in methodology, some present some very interesting data. This one in particular showed that there's a 31.6% chance that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be as well. Again, not abolute, but certianly higher than the indidence for fraternal twins (sharing the same womb and upbringing) and just plain old sibling (occupy same womb at different times and occupy same household).

"Tendency, not tyranny." as one researcher put it.

But I think there are just too many other factors that come into play here. Perhaps one twin is paid more attention to. Perhaps something embarrassing happens to one twin at some point in their life. I just beleive there are too many factors that come into play that you can't just say "well if one's gay, then the other has to be gay."
I'm going to just have to call you deeply and irretrievably stupid at this point. I'm going to continue "denigrating" you if you cannot be bothered to read the article I linked or my post regarding said article.

well no, i didn't read the article, but please point out where something I said was stupid. Perhaps I was just arguing about the wrong thing? Regardless, this debate is over. There's no point in arguing with a troll...maybe you should go talk to M4H
No, there's no point in arguing with someone WHO DOESN'T BOTHER TO READ WHAT YOU POST. nakedfrog even bolded the parts you missed for you.

so it was the fact that I said "if one's gay, the other's gay?" Your data was that if one id twin is gay, then there's a 31.6% chance the other is. Is that number high or low to you? I'm guessing most people think that they would both be gay because they are identical twins, but that number is pretty low in that case
Okay, I'm going to spell this out for you.


Q: What has been my assertion on this subject throughout the thread.

A: That being gay is a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Neither is an absolute determinant.


Q: What does the twin study I linked state?

A: That there is a correlation for both identical and non-identical twins, but that this correlation is not absolute.


Q: What can we conclude from this?

A: That being gay is a combination of genetic and environmental factors.




Is that too much to understand? It's both. It always has been. All the available data supports this.

 
Originally posted by: MadPeriot
Originally posted by: DougK62
I don't think people choose to be gay, but I don't think they're born that way either. IMO, it's probably environmental influences when they're young.

So therefore its by choice.

How is it a choice if a person isn't consciously choosing? I can tell you that I never made a choice.
 
I've always thought that it was a combination of nature and nurture. something inside the brains of gays predisposes them to become homosexuals, but it is also effected by the enviornment in which they were raised.
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Dude, you misquoted. You're only supposed to quote the first person, not the one you agree with.

HoP's head is so far up his ass with his "you're all ignorant" post that he's tasting his breakfast twice.

- M4H

Anybody can fling around clever insults, bro. Try taking part in a rational discussion with an opened mind for a change.

Never going to happen. That would require him actually having something to contribute to the civil and mature conversations that he ends up sh|tting all over.

If I recall, you're the one who blew his stack a half-dozen posts ago. Grow up, get over that whore you dated and move on with your life. Sure, I got hurt when I was younger by a woman. But for fvck's sake, stop dragging your Linkin-Park-caliber Angst into every god damn post you make.

Oh, and try reading some of the earlier posts; you know, before this degenerated into a hellhole.

- M4H

Seriously. Fvck off and die. Please?

Come do it yourself, or would you miss the Dashboard Confessional tour? :roll:

My first comment was in regard to your well-known sweet tooth for that class of honey. NOT Chelsea. STOP TWISTING EVERYTHING ANYONE SAYS INTO A VERBAL ATTACK AGAINST YOU.

- M4H

I know you, you fvck. You and I have plotted and schemed many-a-time over IM as to what to post in certain threads. I know how you think. I guess I should half expect someone so ruthless to turn on "friends" just to satisfy their lust for blood.

Whatever. You're obviously hung over and not stoned, so I won't bother trying to reason with you. And if you really "knew how I thought" you'd know that if I was targeting you for a record-setting flaming, it wouldn't have been something that simple.

- M4H
 
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: MadPeriot
Originally posted by: DougK62
I don't think people choose to be gay, but I don't think they're born that way either. IMO, it's probably environmental influences when they're young.

So therefore its by choice.

How is it a choice if a person isn't consciously choosing? I can tell you that I never made a choice.

The subconscious makes decisions for us every day.
 
I believe it's the same reason people are either democrats or republicans.

BTW...I still like tacos.
 
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Nik
Well, let's just say that until I see empirical physical evidence that homosexuality is a result of a genetic "feature," we'll say, I will continue to look elsewhere for my personal belief in why humans are breaking laws of nature. Sorry to offend anyone -especially one person in particular that I know this is going to really piss off, but I'm sorry. That's how it is for me, since nothing has ever been physically and empirically proven.
Nik (and others) there's evidence that genetics influence orientation, but do not dictate it. That's about the long and short of it. You just cannot say it's 100% one way or the other. There have been studies of twins and although some are completely flawed in methodology, some present some very interesting data. This one in particular showed that there's a 31.6% chance that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be as well. Again, not abolute, but certianly higher than the indidence for fraternal twins (sharing the same womb and upbringing) and just plain old sibling (occupy same womb at different times and occupy same household).

"Tendency, not tyranny." as one researcher put it.

But I think there are just too many other factors that come into play here. Perhaps one twin is paid more attention to. Perhaps something embarrassing happens to one twin at some point in their life. I just beleive there are too many factors that come into play that you can't just say "well if one's gay, then the other has to be gay."
I'm going to just have to call you deeply and irretrievably stupid at this point. I'm going to continue "denigrating" you if you cannot be bothered to read the article I linked or my post regarding said article.

well no, i didn't read the article, but please point out where something I said was stupid. Perhaps I was just arguing about the wrong thing? Regardless, this debate is over. There's no point in arguing with a troll...maybe you should go talk to M4H
No, there's no point in arguing with someone WHO DOESN'T BOTHER TO READ WHAT YOU POST. nakedfrog even bolded the parts you missed for you.

so it was the fact that I said "if one's gay, the other's gay?" Your data was that if one id twin is gay, then there's a 31.6% chance the other is. Is that number high or low to you? I'm guessing most people think that they would both be gay because they are identical twins, but that number is pretty low in that case
Okay, I'm going to spell this out for you.


Q: What has been my assertion on this subject throughout the thread.

A: That being gay is a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Neither is an absolute determinant.


Q: What does the twin study I linked state?

A: That there is a correlation for both identical and non-identical twins, but that this correlation is not absolute.


Q: What can we conclude from this?

A: That being gay is a combination of genetic and environmental factors.




Is that too much to understand? It's both. It always has been. All the available data supports this.

First off, I never knew what your stance was, so I got confused as to what your point was after you posted that link. Secondly, that's quite a conclusion to be making just from that one article. Yes, it is interesting, but back to my original point that there are just too many factors that come into play. You even stated that some of these studies are completely flawed in methodology, but I don't think we can draw definite conclusions from this argument. But regardless, it is interesting, and who knows, perhaps it's 100% correct
 
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Stojakapimp
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: Nik
Well, let's just say that until I see empirical physical evidence that homosexuality is a result of a genetic "feature," we'll say, I will continue to look elsewhere for my personal belief in why humans are breaking laws of nature. Sorry to offend anyone -especially one person in particular that I know this is going to really piss off, but I'm sorry. That's how it is for me, since nothing has ever been physically and empirically proven.
Nik (and others) there's evidence that genetics influence orientation, but do not dictate it. That's about the long and short of it. You just cannot say it's 100% one way or the other. There have been studies of twins and although some are completely flawed in methodology, some present some very interesting data. This one in particular showed that there's a 31.6% chance that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be as well. Again, not abolute, but certianly higher than the indidence for fraternal twins (sharing the same womb and upbringing) and just plain old sibling (occupy same womb at different times and occupy same household).

"Tendency, not tyranny." as one researcher put it.

But I think there are just too many other factors that come into play here. Perhaps one twin is paid more attention to. Perhaps something embarrassing happens to one twin at some point in their life. I just beleive there are too many factors that come into play that you can't just say "well if one's gay, then the other has to be gay."
I'm going to just have to call you deeply and irretrievably stupid at this point. I'm going to continue "denigrating" you if you cannot be bothered to read the article I linked or my post regarding said article.

well no, i didn't read the article, but please point out where something I said was stupid. Perhaps I was just arguing about the wrong thing? Regardless, this debate is over. There's no point in arguing with a troll...maybe you should go talk to M4H
No, there's no point in arguing with someone WHO DOESN'T BOTHER TO READ WHAT YOU POST. nakedfrog even bolded the parts you missed for you.

so it was the fact that I said "if one's gay, the other's gay?" Your data was that if one id twin is gay, then there's a 31.6% chance the other is. Is that number high or low to you? I'm guessing most people think that they would both be gay because they are identical twins, but that number is pretty low in that case
Okay, I'm going to spell this out for you.


Q: What has been my assertion on this subject throughout the thread.

A: That being gay is a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Neither is an absolute determinant.


Q: What does the twin study I linked state?

A: That there is a correlation for both identical and non-identical twins, but that this correlation is not absolute.


Q: What can we conclude from this?

A: That being gay is a combination of genetic and environmental factors.




Is that too much to understand? It's both. It always has been. All the available data supports this.

First off, I never knew what your stance was, so I got confused as to what your point was after you posted that link. Secondly, that's quite a conclusion to be making just from that one article. Yes, it is interesting, but back to my original point that there are just too many factors that come into play. You even stated that some of these studies are completely flawed in methodology, but I don't think we can draw definite conclusions from this argument. But regardless, it is interesting, and who knows, perhaps it's 100% correct
I picked the study with the best methodology. At any rate, it's only one study but the point is that if there were no genetic component to "gayness" whatsoever, you wouldn't see any correlation in twin studies. Period.

 
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: MadPeriot
Originally posted by: DougK62
I don't think people choose to be gay, but I don't think they're born that way either. IMO, it's probably environmental influences when they're young.

So therefore its by choice.

How is it a choice if a person isn't consciously choosing? I can tell you that I never made a choice.

The subconscious makes decisions for us every day.

You're right, it is a decision - But it is not a choice - when you say that a person chooses to become straight or gay, you're implying that the mind has a clear choice out of a group of certain selections. If anything, the subconscious makes decisions, and decisions and choices are not one in the same.
 
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: MadPeriot
Originally posted by: DougK62
I don't think people choose to be gay, but I don't think they're born that way either. IMO, it's probably environmental influences when they're young.

So therefore its by choice.

How is it a choice if a person isn't consciously choosing? I can tell you that I never made a choice.

The subconscious makes decisions for us every day.

But it is not a choice - when you say that a person chooses to become straight or gay, you're implying that the mind has a clear choice out of a group of certain selections. If anything, the subconscious makes decisions, and decisions and choices are not one in the same.

Precisely.

My brain is hardwired to like women ... women with big tits that I want to smash my face between and shake my head vigorously.

Bible-banging, shock therapy, and threats on my life might change the outward manifestation of that.

But deep inside my mind, there will always be that little voice.

"Motorboat."

"MOTORBOAT."

"MOTORBOAT!"

- M4H
 
Originally posted by: Nik
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: MadPeriot
Originally posted by: DougK62
I don't think people choose to be gay, but I don't think they're born that way either. IMO, it's probably environmental influences when they're young.

So therefore its by choice.

How is it a choice if a person isn't consciously choosing? I can tell you that I never made a choice.

The subconscious makes decisions for us every day.
Indeed, but by definition that means it isn't a conscious choice. It means that is the way your brain is wired.
 
Back
Top