Question for those who actually believe 'transgenderism' is a real thing?

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I'm totally swoondled now!

Heeeeeyyy....that sounds like swindled....is she being sarcastic?

Will you two please get a room?

I was actually just about to say that.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Okay...so maybe we did hijack the thread...heh..

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Personally, and in just my not so humble opinion, I do not believe for one second that people CHOOSE to be gay or transgender or (insert name here). I think during growth in the womb, a wire or two was crossed or never fused. Who would choose such a life willingly? The mental abuse alone is enough to make one shudder, so why CHOOSE that? Nope. They were born with one too many chromosomes or one too many less, and a wire or two didn't connect at the numbered other wire.

First, thank you. It takes a lot of courage to post that amid the welter of hyper-emotionalism around these topics on this board and, IMO, it reveals the underlying fear on the part of the "It's a Choice" contingent, namely:

(A) Either these variants are as natural as being left-handed or heterochromic, or
(B) God made a mistake

And since God doesn't make mistakes, the fear-mongers are left with option (A), and they can't wrap their minds around it.

ETA: Post #119 beat me to it!

No, sorry...those are not the only two options. In fact, there is a sizable minority of homosexuals who not only admit they chose to be homosexual, they are proud of it and say they wish to groom children into the gay lifestyle...which is why you never hear about them in the media. They're ultra-radical. Here is one of their websites:

Queer by Choice dot com

"
For the radicals, like the conservatives, homosexuality is definitely a choice. . . . They both react with disdain to those studies that seem to reflect a genetic source for homosexuality."
—Andrew Sullivan, "The Politics of Homosexuality,"The New Republic,May 10, 1993

Andrew Sullivan doesn't claim to be a radical—he'd be sickened at the thought!—and he refuses to believe that anyone can choose to be queer. Yet as you can see from the quote above, he clearly acknowledges that those of us who consider ourselves "queer by choice" are true radicals. Whether the idea of queerness as a radical choice is familiar to you or brand new, you've come to the right place to find out more about it. This is QueerByChoice.com—a radical gathering place for people who have chosen to be queer"

Are there any other similar sites you've found during your, um, "research"?

You seem to be interested in finding out!

She doesn't seem interested in finding out given the tone of her reply to me. She sounds like she just wants to mock and be closed minded whilst she's loading up her Super High-Powered Ad-Hominem Personal Attack Cannon.

 

[ChrisL]

I'm totally swoondled now!

Heeeeeyyy....that sounds like swindled....is she being sarcastic?

Will you two please get a room?

I was actually just about to say that.

Party poopers!

 

[boedicca]

Perhaps these folks get their info from less than honest sources or something? Maybe they don't know they're being lied to?

The Leftwing Loons believe manipulated models that fake Global Warming, but can't tell Men with Penii from Women without Penii.

 

[ChrisL]

Okay...so maybe we did hijack the thread...heh..

Was it as good for you as it was for me?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Okay...so maybe we did hijack the thread...heh..

Was it as good for you as it was for me?

The curls are driving me crazy

 

[Arianrhod]

I'm totally swoondled now!

Heeeeeyyy....that sounds like swindled....is she being sarcastic?

Will you two please get a room?

I was actually just about to say that.

Party poopers!

On second thought, yours is a much more interesting conversation than the OP's silly premise, so feel free to carry on.

 

[ChrisL]

Okay...so maybe we did hijack the thread...heh..

Was it as good for you as it was for me?

The curls are driving me crazy

Chrissy curls!

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I'm totally swoondled now!

Heeeeeyyy....that sounds like swindled....is she being sarcastic?

Will you two please get a room?

I was actually just about to say that.

Party poopers!

On second thought, yours is a much more interesting conversation than the OP's silly premise, so feel free to carry on.

No, please take your banter elsewhere. If you purposely are trying to derail my thread, I'm gonna have to bring in a mod. I don't want to do that.

Now back to the topic:
"
What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay
BY BRANDON AMBROSINO
February 6, 2014


I recently wrote in an essay for The New Republic that gayness is, at least for me, a choice. My critics’ response was immediate and unanimous: That's impossible, they replied, because science has proven that gays are born that way. I was also accused of conflating identity and desire, and I even read that my position could get LGBT people killed. I'll take these arguments one at a time.

Neighbors 2: Equal Opportunity Idiocy

• Why Animal GIFs Make Us Feel Better

• It’s Not Bernie Sanders’s Job to Unify the Democratic Party

• All The Way: Proof That You Can’t Escape the Past

• Welcome to Maria Bamford’s Neighborhood

Writing at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern insists that sexual “orientation can never be altered,” citing "a number of scientists” he interviewed for anearlier article on the subject. Stern's certainty is all the more surprising, given his admission science has “never settled on an answer” for the origins of gayness and that the scientific studies he links to are couched with all kinds of qualifications. The National Center for Biotechnical Information study he cites, for instance, reads (italics mine): “Available evidence suggests that male homosexuality is … somewhat heritable … However, most studies have recruited subjects in a relatively unsystematic manner … and hence suffer from the potentialmethodological flaw of ascertainmentbias …."

The science on orientation remains murky. On this subject, the American Psychological Association says, “Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” You might overlook the word “sense” in that quote, but that would be a serious distortion of the psychological consensus. Having no sense of choice refers to an unawareness of choosing, not the inability to choose. Further, while the APA affirms the possibility of homosexuality’s innateness (nature), it leaves open the possibility that, for at least some of us, gay orientation could be the result of “complex” environmental processes (nurture).

On the matter of identity versus desire. Gabriel Arana writes in The New Republic, "It is true that I have chosen to identify as gay, that I express myself in a way that makes it clear I am gay, and that I have gay sex. All of these are a matter of choice. But my sexual orientation—my underlying attraction for men—is beyond my control." Noah Michelson offers a similar sentiment in a Huffington Post article: “ … very few people would claim that they chose their attractions or that they could or can simply change them at will. However, what we do with our attractions and how we perform them is a choice.”

More at the link:

What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Jesus Christ....I was using some seasoned flour to coat pork chops and breathed in a plume of it up my nose...damn....that was horrible!

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Jesus Christ....I was using some seasoned flour to coat pork chops and breathed in a plume of it up my nose...damn....that was horrible!

Reported. Let's get back on topic.

 

[ChrisL]

Heeeeeyyy....that sounds like swindled....is she being sarcastic?

Will you two please get a room?

I was actually just about to say that.

Party poopers!

On second thought, yours is a much more interesting conversation than the OP's silly premise, so feel free to carry on.

No, please take your banter elsewhere. If you purposely are trying to derail my thread, I'm gonna have to bring in a mod. I don't want to do that.

Now back to the topic:
"
What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay
BY BRANDON AMBROSINO
February 6, 2014


I recently wrote in an essay for The New Republic that gayness is, at least for me, a choice. My critics’ response was immediate and unanimous: That's impossible, they replied, because science has proven that gays are born that way. I was also accused of conflating identity and desire, and I even read that my position could get LGBT people killed. I'll take these arguments one at a time.

Neighbors 2: Equal Opportunity Idiocy

• Why Animal GIFs Make Us Feel Better

• It’s Not Bernie Sanders’s Job to Unify the Democratic Party

• All The Way: Proof That You Can’t Escape the Past

• Welcome to Maria Bamford’s Neighborhood

Writing at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern insists that sexual “orientation can never be altered,” citing "a number of scientists” he interviewed for anearlier article on the subject. Stern's certainty is all the more surprising, given his admission science has “never settled on an answer” for the origins of gayness and that the scientific studies he links to are couched with all kinds of qualifications. The National Center for Biotechnical Information study he cites, for instance, reads (italics mine): “Available evidence suggests that male homosexuality is … somewhat heritable … However, most studies have recruited subjects in a relatively unsystematic manner … and hence suffer from the potentialmethodological flaw of ascertainmentbias …."

The science on orientation remains murky. On this subject, the American Psychological Association says, “Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” You might overlook the word “sense” in that quote, but that would be a serious distortion of the psychological consensus. Having no sense of choice refers to an unawareness of choosing, not the inability to choose. Further, while the APA affirms the possibility of homosexuality’s innateness (nature), it leaves open the possibility that, for at least some of us, gay orientation could be the result of “complex” environmental processes (nurture).

On the matter of identity versus desire. Gabriel Arana writes in The New Republic, "It is true that I have chosen to identify as gay, that I express myself in a way that makes it clear I am gay, and that I have gay sex. All of these are a matter of choice. But my sexual orientation—my underlying attraction for men—is beyond my control." Noah Michelson offers a similar sentiment in a Huffington Post article: “ … very few people would claim that they chose their attractions or that they could or can simply change them at will. However, what we do with our attractions and how we perform them is a choice.”

More at the link:

What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay

Sorry. I have a knack for unintentionally derailing threads. Lol.

 

[Arianrhod]

Heeeeeyyy....that sounds like swindled....is she being sarcastic?

Will you two please get a room?

I was actually just about to say that.

Party poopers!

On second thought, yours is a much more interesting conversation than the OP's silly premise, so feel free to carry on.

No, please take your banter elsewhere. If you purposely are trying to derail my thread, I'm gonna have to bring in a mod. I don't want to do that.

Now back to the topic:
"
What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay
BY BRANDON AMBROSINO
February 6, 2014


I recently wrote in an essay for The New Republic that gayness is, at least for me, a choice. My critics’ response was immediate and unanimous: That's impossible, they replied, because science has proven that gays are born that way. I was also accused of conflating identity and desire, and I even read that my position could get LGBT people killed. I'll take these arguments one at a time.

Neighbors 2: Equal Opportunity Idiocy

• Why Animal GIFs Make Us Feel Better

• It’s Not Bernie Sanders’s Job to Unify the Democratic Party

• All The Way: Proof That You Can’t Escape the Past

• Welcome to Maria Bamford’s Neighborhood

Writing at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern insists that sexual “orientation can never be altered,” citing "a number of scientists” he interviewed for anearlier article on the subject. Stern's certainty is all the more surprising, given his admission science has “never settled on an answer” for the origins of gayness and that the scientific studies he links to are couched with all kinds of qualifications. The National Center for Biotechnical Information study he cites, for instance, reads (italics mine): “Available evidence suggests that male homosexuality is … somewhat heritable … However, most studies have recruited subjects in a relatively unsystematic manner … and hence suffer from the potentialmethodological flaw of ascertainmentbias …."

The science on orientation remains murky. On this subject, the American Psychological Association says, “Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” You might overlook the word “sense” in that quote, but that would be a serious distortion of the psychological consensus. Having no sense of choice refers to an unawareness of choosing, not the inability to choose. Further, while the APA affirms the possibility of homosexuality’s innateness (nature), it leaves open the possibility that, for at least some of us, gay orientation could be the result of “complex” environmental processes (nurture).

On the matter of identity versus desire. Gabriel Arana writes in The New Republic, "It is true that I have chosen to identify as gay, that I express myself in a way that makes it clear I am gay, and that I have gay sex. All of these are a matter of choice. But my sexual orientation—my underlying attraction for men—is beyond my control." Noah Michelson offers a similar sentiment in a Huffington Post article: “ … very few people would claim that they chose their attractions or that they could or can simply change them at will. However, what we do with our attractions and how we perform them is a choice.”

More at the link:

What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay

So you have searched this particular angle extensively. Interesting.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Will you two please get a room?

I was actually just about to say that.

Party poopers!

On second thought, yours is a much more interesting conversation than the OP's silly premise, so feel free to carry on.

No, please take your banter elsewhere. If you purposely are trying to derail my thread, I'm gonna have to bring in a mod. I don't want to do that.

Now back to the topic:
"
What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay
BY BRANDON AMBROSINO
February 6, 2014


I recently wrote in an essay for The New Republic that gayness is, at least for me, a choice. My critics’ response was immediate and unanimous: That's impossible, they replied, because science has proven that gays are born that way. I was also accused of conflating identity and desire, and I even read that my position could get LGBT people killed. I'll take these arguments one at a time.

Neighbors 2: Equal Opportunity Idiocy

• Why Animal GIFs Make Us Feel Better

• It’s Not Bernie Sanders’s Job to Unify the Democratic Party

• All The Way: Proof That You Can’t Escape the Past

• Welcome to Maria Bamford’s Neighborhood

Writing at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern insists that sexual “orientation can never be altered,” citing "a number of scientists” he interviewed for anearlier article on the subject. Stern's certainty is all the more surprising, given his admission science has “never settled on an answer” for the origins of gayness and that the scientific studies he links to are couched with all kinds of qualifications. The National Center for Biotechnical Information study he cites, for instance, reads (italics mine): “Available evidence suggests that male homosexuality is … somewhat heritable … However, most studies have recruited subjects in a relatively unsystematic manner … and hence suffer from the potentialmethodological flaw of ascertainmentbias …."

The science on orientation remains murky. On this subject, the American Psychological Association says, “Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” You might overlook the word “sense” in that quote, but that would be a serious distortion of the psychological consensus. Having no sense of choice refers to an unawareness of choosing, not the inability to choose. Further, while the APA affirms the possibility of homosexuality’s innateness (nature), it leaves open the possibility that, for at least some of us, gay orientation could be the result of “complex” environmental processes (nurture).

On the matter of identity versus desire. Gabriel Arana writes in The New Republic, "It is true that I have chosen to identify as gay, that I express myself in a way that makes it clear I am gay, and that I have gay sex. All of these are a matter of choice. But my sexual orientation—my underlying attraction for men—is beyond my control." Noah Michelson offers a similar sentiment in a Huffington Post article: “ … very few people would claim that they chose their attractions or that they could or can simply change them at will. However, what we do with our attractions and how we perform them is a choice.”

More at the link:

What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay

Sorry. I have a knack for unintentionally derailing threads. Lol.

I know you weren't meaning to be a jerk. But arianrhod purposely wants to hijack my thread and Chris L wants to help so I'm reporting the comments.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Will you two please get a room?

I was actually just about to say that.

Party poopers!

On second thought, yours is a much more interesting conversation than the OP's silly premise, so feel free to carry on.

No, please take your banter elsewhere. If you purposely are trying to derail my thread, I'm gonna have to bring in a mod. I don't want to do that.

Now back to the topic:
"
What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay
BY BRANDON AMBROSINO
February 6, 2014


I recently wrote in an essay for The New Republic that gayness is, at least for me, a choice. My critics’ response was immediate and unanimous: That's impossible, they replied, because science has proven that gays are born that way. I was also accused of conflating identity and desire, and I even read that my position could get LGBT people killed. I'll take these arguments one at a time.

Neighbors 2: Equal Opportunity Idiocy

• Why Animal GIFs Make Us Feel Better

• It’s Not Bernie Sanders’s Job to Unify the Democratic Party

• All The Way: Proof That You Can’t Escape the Past

• Welcome to Maria Bamford’s Neighborhood

Writing at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern insists that sexual “orientation can never be altered,” citing "a number of scientists” he interviewed for anearlier article on the subject. Stern's certainty is all the more surprising, given his admission science has “never settled on an answer” for the origins of gayness and that the scientific studies he links to are couched with all kinds of qualifications. The National Center for Biotechnical Information study he cites, for instance, reads (italics mine): “Available evidence suggests that male homosexuality is … somewhat heritable … However, most studies have recruited subjects in a relatively unsystematic manner … and hence suffer from the potentialmethodological flaw of ascertainmentbias …."

The science on orientation remains murky. On this subject, the American Psychological Association says, “Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” You might overlook the word “sense” in that quote, but that would be a serious distortion of the psychological consensus. Having no sense of choice refers to an unawareness of choosing, not the inability to choose. Further, while the APA affirms the possibility of homosexuality’s innateness (nature), it leaves open the possibility that, for at least some of us, gay orientation could be the result of “complex” environmental processes (nurture).

On the matter of identity versus desire. Gabriel Arana writes in The New Republic, "It is true that I have chosen to identify as gay, that I express myself in a way that makes it clear I am gay, and that I have gay sex. All of these are a matter of choice. But my sexual orientation—my underlying attraction for men—is beyond my control." Noah Michelson offers a similar sentiment in a Huffington Post article: “ … very few people would claim that they chose their attractions or that they could or can simply change them at will. However, what we do with our attractions and how we perform them is a choice.”

More at the link:

What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay

So you have searched this particular angle extensively. Interesting.

I've searched all the different explanations, yes. But I am not an expert. I just know that not all gays go along with the political talking points.

 

[ChrisL]

I was actually just about to say that.

Party poopers!

On second thought, yours is a much more interesting conversation than the OP's silly premise, so feel free to carry on.

No, please take your banter elsewhere. If you purposely are trying to derail my thread, I'm gonna have to bring in a mod. I don't want to do that.

Now back to the topic:
"
What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay
BY BRANDON AMBROSINO
February 6, 2014


I recently wrote in an essay for The New Republic that gayness is, at least for me, a choice. My critics’ response was immediate and unanimous: That's impossible, they replied, because science has proven that gays are born that way. I was also accused of conflating identity and desire, and I even read that my position could get LGBT people killed. I'll take these arguments one at a time.

Neighbors 2: Equal Opportunity Idiocy

• Why Animal GIFs Make Us Feel Better

• It’s Not Bernie Sanders’s Job to Unify the Democratic Party

• All The Way: Proof That You Can’t Escape the Past

• Welcome to Maria Bamford’s Neighborhood

Writing at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern insists that sexual “orientation can never be altered,” citing "a number of scientists” he interviewed for anearlier article on the subject. Stern's certainty is all the more surprising, given his admission science has “never settled on an answer” for the origins of gayness and that the scientific studies he links to are couched with all kinds of qualifications. The National Center for Biotechnical Information study he cites, for instance, reads (italics mine): “Available evidence suggests that male homosexuality is … somewhat heritable … However, most studies have recruited subjects in a relatively unsystematic manner … and hence suffer from the potentialmethodological flaw of ascertainmentbias …."

The science on orientation remains murky. On this subject, the American Psychological Association says, “Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” You might overlook the word “sense” in that quote, but that would be a serious distortion of the psychological consensus. Having no sense of choice refers to an unawareness of choosing, not the inability to choose. Further, while the APA affirms the possibility of homosexuality’s innateness (nature), it leaves open the possibility that, for at least some of us, gay orientation could be the result of “complex” environmental processes (nurture).

On the matter of identity versus desire. Gabriel Arana writes in The New Republic, "It is true that I have chosen to identify as gay, that I express myself in a way that makes it clear I am gay, and that I have gay sex. All of these are a matter of choice. But my sexual orientation—my underlying attraction for men—is beyond my control." Noah Michelson offers a similar sentiment in a Huffington Post article: “ … very few people would claim that they chose their attractions or that they could or can simply change them at will. However, what we do with our attractions and how we perform them is a choice.”

More at the link:

What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay

Sorry. I have a knack for unintentionally derailing threads. Lol.

I know you weren't meaning to be a jerk. But arianrhod purposely wants to hijack my thread and Chris L wants to help so I'm reporting the comments.

I don't want to derail your thread. Mr. Gestapo.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Party poopers!

On second thought, yours is a much more interesting conversation than the OP's silly premise, so feel free to carry on.

No, please take your banter elsewhere. If you purposely are trying to derail my thread, I'm gonna have to bring in a mod. I don't want to do that.

Now back to the topic:
"
What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay
BY BRANDON AMBROSINO
February 6, 2014


I recently wrote in an essay for The New Republic that gayness is, at least for me, a choice. My critics’ response was immediate and unanimous: That's impossible, they replied, because science has proven that gays are born that way. I was also accused of conflating identity and desire, and I even read that my position could get LGBT people killed. I'll take these arguments one at a time.

Neighbors 2: Equal Opportunity Idiocy

• Why Animal GIFs Make Us Feel Better

• It’s Not Bernie Sanders’s Job to Unify the Democratic Party

• All The Way: Proof That You Can’t Escape the Past

• Welcome to Maria Bamford’s Neighborhood

Writing at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern insists that sexual “orientation can never be altered,” citing "a number of scientists” he interviewed for anearlier article on the subject. Stern's certainty is all the more surprising, given his admission science has “never settled on an answer” for the origins of gayness and that the scientific studies he links to are couched with all kinds of qualifications. The National Center for Biotechnical Information study he cites, for instance, reads (italics mine): “Available evidence suggests that male homosexuality is … somewhat heritable … However, most studies have recruited subjects in a relatively unsystematic manner … and hence suffer from the potentialmethodological flaw of ascertainmentbias …."

The science on orientation remains murky. On this subject, the American Psychological Association says, “Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” You might overlook the word “sense” in that quote, but that would be a serious distortion of the psychological consensus. Having no sense of choice refers to an unawareness of choosing, not the inability to choose. Further, while the APA affirms the possibility of homosexuality’s innateness (nature), it leaves open the possibility that, for at least some of us, gay orientation could be the result of “complex” environmental processes (nurture).

On the matter of identity versus desire. Gabriel Arana writes in The New Republic, "It is true that I have chosen to identify as gay, that I express myself in a way that makes it clear I am gay, and that I have gay sex. All of these are a matter of choice. But my sexual orientation—my underlying attraction for men—is beyond my control." Noah Michelson offers a similar sentiment in a Huffington Post article: “ … very few people would claim that they chose their attractions or that they could or can simply change them at will. However, what we do with our attractions and how we perform them is a choice.”

More at the link:

What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay

Sorry. I have a knack for unintentionally derailing threads. Lol.

I know you weren't meaning to be a jerk. But arianrhod purposely wants to hijack my thread and Chris L wants to help so I'm reporting the comments.

I don't want to derail your thread. Mr. Gestapo.

That's right. Lol

 

[Arianrhod]

I was actually just about to say that.

Party poopers!

On second thought, yours is a much more interesting conversation than the OP's silly premise, so feel free to carry on.

No, please take your banter elsewhere. If you purposely are trying to derail my thread, I'm gonna have to bring in a mod. I don't want to do that.

Now back to the topic:
"
What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay
BY BRANDON AMBROSINO
February 6, 2014


I recently wrote in an essay for The New Republic that gayness is, at least for me, a choice. My critics’ response was immediate and unanimous: That's impossible, they replied, because science has proven that gays are born that way. I was also accused of conflating identity and desire, and I even read that my position could get LGBT people killed. I'll take these arguments one at a time.

Neighbors 2: Equal Opportunity Idiocy

• Why Animal GIFs Make Us Feel Better

• It’s Not Bernie Sanders’s Job to Unify the Democratic Party

• All The Way: Proof That You Can’t Escape the Past

• Welcome to Maria Bamford’s Neighborhood

Writing at Slate, Mark Joseph Stern insists that sexual “orientation can never be altered,” citing "a number of scientists” he interviewed for anearlier article on the subject. Stern's certainty is all the more surprising, given his admission science has “never settled on an answer” for the origins of gayness and that the scientific studies he links to are couched with all kinds of qualifications. The National Center for Biotechnical Information study he cites, for instance, reads (italics mine): “Available evidence suggests that male homosexuality is … somewhat heritable … However, most studies have recruited subjects in a relatively unsystematic manner … and hence suffer from the potentialmethodological flaw of ascertainmentbias …."

The science on orientation remains murky. On this subject, the American Psychological Association says, “Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” You might overlook the word “sense” in that quote, but that would be a serious distortion of the psychological consensus. Having no sense of choice refers to an unawareness of choosing, not the inability to choose. Further, while the APA affirms the possibility of homosexuality’s innateness (nature), it leaves open the possibility that, for at least some of us, gay orientation could be the result of “complex” environmental processes (nurture).

On the matter of identity versus desire. Gabriel Arana writes in The New Republic, "It is true that I have chosen to identify as gay, that I express myself in a way that makes it clear I am gay, and that I have gay sex. All of these are a matter of choice. But my sexual orientation—my underlying attraction for men—is beyond my control." Noah Michelson offers a similar sentiment in a Huffington Post article: “ … very few people would claim that they chose their attractions or that they could or can simply change them at will. However, what we do with our attractions and how we perform them is a choice.”

More at the link:

What My Angry Critics Get Wrong About My Choice to Be Gay

So you have searched this particular angle extensively. Interesting.

I've searched all the different explanations, yes. But I am not an expert. I just know that not all gays go along with the political talking points.

Search on, dude!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Ya'll might be too young to get this....