Why is the mainstream so against the possibility that being gay can be a choice and a hormonal imbalance?

Why is the mainstream so against the possibility that being gay can be a choice and a hormonal imbalance?

>grow up watching cartoons with no masculine male leads
>watch porn all day leading to gay fetishes
>do effeminate things purposely
>take hormones to make you gayer
>”no dude., you’re born gay!”

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/T5WV5SKe
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testis-determining_factor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1887219/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_ref-48
youtu.be/6k2FkUF41AA
pnas.org/content/early/2017/12/05/1705895114.abstract
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Simple. If you aren't born gay, then the religious were right all along and there really is no reason not to use conversion therapy. Non-binary actually gets the mental illness designation it deserves and the "trans argument" disappears entirely because people know they are just gay, and that's fixable. in essence, the left relies on this one stance or everything they've worked for falls apart.

Liberal ideology is so insistent that you are "born gay" but rejects
>people are gay due to pregnancy complications
>there is a gay gene
Combine the fact that they also reject
>people are gay due to external stimuli
>non-gay people can become gay
and, logically, you only have two possible explanations for homosexuality:
>gays do not exist
>wizards create gays to spread aids

They can't win the argument.

>option 1: homosexuality is a choice
Then you can choose not to
>option 2: homosexuality is biological, no choice
Then it can be fixed. Whatever the cause - a gene, a hormonal imbalance during pregnancy, chemicals in baby's environment, whatever it may be - if it is a material thing, we can then prevent homosexuality. Even if (and that's a big if) we accept that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, that stance does not mean homosexuality is therefore desireable. If we can make a person heterosexual from birth and keep him/her that way, there is no "forced conversion" or some such ethical controversy.

It doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice or not, either way we can and should eliminate it.

Fucked up people really hate being told that they are not normal. Same exact shit happens if you say cutting your dick off is a mental illness. In protecting these people from the reality of how fucked up of a brain they have, we train people to think that even though its not their fault, there is nothing we can do about it except clap our hands and wave a rainbow flag.

The mommy state at its finest. Hopefully Trump is going to turn this ship around and mentally ill people finally get the treatment they deserve before we let them get their genitals permanently fucked up by some shady doctor.

If gays are born gay then :

>Trans' are born trans.
>Furfags too.
>Pedos too.
>Necros too.
>Zoophiles too.

If gays are born gay, literally every "taste" in anything ever is pre determined at birth and there is no such thing as an acquired taste. Which is utter bullshit. Something made you gay. Something made you into a living thing that will NOT try and spread its genes later on.

>repressed archetypes

>It doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice or not, either way we can and should eliminate it.

This is how I feel about literally every mental illness. Either through gene therapy or castration, we have to stop telling fuck ups that they are perfectly normal and its time we start purging these retarded illnesses from our specie.

It's time to move on from the inferior parts of our DNA.

well the problem with that view is: when do you stop?

is a high IQ individual that is a functional autist also included?

the greatest in almost every arena of human activity have either through choice or genetics sacrificed part of themselves to excel in another

do you really want to create an environment in which you try to purge the 'mavericks'?

Tesla -> asexual, thought he had a relationship with a bird

Alan Turing -> fag, committed suicide

music, art etc -> a lot of obsessive personality disorders

Orwell -> fag

fags are unburdened by the need to conquer women - they can therefore ignore them and their retarded values

I'm sorry but I vote for fags to be allowed

the Athenians were probably onto something

...

This. Take the BF Skinner pill.

This guy knows what is up. Not every weird fucked up person is exceptional in a positive way, but almost every person that is exceptional in a positive way is fucked up in some way.

IMO all the plastics, chemicals, hormones in food are fucking men up

> Epigenetics.

Homosexuality is genetic:

pastebin.com/T5WV5SKe

So this article the other day
Its TOTAL BULLSHIT subjective study
Not an actual finding

Good, then that means there is a biological basis for cleaning out the gay gene.

Being gay LITERALLY is a choice for some people. They are called bisexuals. Its just MUCH EASIER to have full privilege to choose to be straight. But for them being straight is ALSO a choice. Again, held back by social influences such as the bigotry found here. Which might I add, is a part of the divide and conquer strategy of the Zog. In a truly free and open society it would be OK to feel however you fucking what, which is pretty much what we have right now. Thank god. PS Gender is a choice toooo........And there is nothing wrong with being a woman.......

...

God fucking damn this is a retarded thread.

The mainstream is against it because the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it's not a choice, and because conversion therapy in 99% of cases does jack shit all except fuck relatively healthy people up emotionally and give them complexes.

>option 2: homosexuality is biological, no choice
>Then it can be fixed. Whatever the cause ... if it is a material thing, we can then prevent homosexuality.
Sure. What you seem to be missing is that the primary point of disagreement is not whether or not homosexuality CAN be fixed/prevented, it's whether or not it SHOULD. Whether or not it's actually a problem, in other words.

No - stop. Stop arguing, I don't care. I do not give a shit what you think, whether you think homosexuality is harmless or a fucking blight on society that needs to be stamped out, I DON'T CARE. I'm not interested in arguing about that, I'm pointing out that you seem to think you've "won the argument" when you don't even understand yet what your opponents are SAYING. Come the fuck on. That's just lazy.

All the liberal (((faggot media))) dropped the word "speculative"

> Liberal faggots sight Being gay is genetic

-_-

I used to be a homo then I stopped.

Now that gays have freedom to be gay in public and be married the less closeted gays become down low bisxual spouses with kids. Now that they have the freedom to be out,
1. No more closted gay with a spouse having kids and passing genes
2. let them keep setting the bar even lower with their degeneracy. Let the future generations, countries have a clear example of their behavior to not let it happen in the future.
The gay community will collapse on itself with death, drugs and disease

Neuroscience fag here. I've got the definitive, well researched redpill on this.

Liberals/mainstream don't understand this at all because liberal cannot into STEM but they are right.

In the mammal brain we have a sexual dimorphic nucleus (remember sexual dimorphism means males have it one way and females have it the other way) that is coded for in our Y chromosome. This sexually dimorphic nucleus interacts strongly with the optic pathways. In short, it's why men love to see naked women. We have an enlarged part of our brain that gets excited specifically for the naked female body and visual sexual displays (e.g. sexy dancing, the act of sex itself, etc. In rats, they get excited when girl rats throw their asses in the air)

Now, remember that mammals are female BY DEFAULT. That means if you pulled out your Y chromosome, you would develop as a female. The Y chromosome *modifies* or *masculinizes* the default female body. There is a disease called 'huevodoches', literally meaning "eggs at 12" where a Y chromosome hormone deficiency causes the body to develop as female until 12, upon which it is masculinized and the 'girl's' clit turns into a dick and she grows balls.

Homosexuality is sort of the same as huevodoches, except it happens because those masculinizing hormones are destroyed by the mother's body during a critical period in brain development. It comes in varying degrees, but the most important consequence is that you can have a female sexually dimorphic nucleus in an otherwise normal male. This boy will not be sexually excited by the sight of women, but will instead revert to the 'default' and be sexually excited by men. The most extreme version of this would be a completely female brain in a body with male genitalia. The fact that it's the mothers body that causes this is why a mother who has had more boys is why the youngest boy is more likely to be gay.

tl;dr Homosexuality is not a choice, it's a hormonal developmental disorder.

Let them have the freedom, of being so degenerate, a new shit/cum infused disease comes into play, and they spark their own genocide. And keep fucking till its over.

>it's a hormonal developmental disorder.
But can it be reversed? And how?

Magnets and using the lunar calander

You can beat them at their own game by agreeing with all of their points.
>people are born gay
>gay people face extreme discrimination in all areas of life
>gay people are much more likely to get STDs
>also euthanasia is okay
>also abortion is okay
>when we have technology to detect gayness in utero, it is humane to abort

One would have to diagnose the deficiency at an early age and medicate to get the brain to develop that part which gets sexually excited by the sight of naked women.
That would be the most natural way to do it.

>>option 2: homosexuality is biological, no choice
>Then it can be fixed. Whatever the cause - a gene, a hormonal imbalance during pregnancy,


You can't fix it without causing drastic deficits to the mother or child's health. I'm relatively sure it would be technically impossible.

t. neuroscience fag

>Neuroscience fag here. I've got the definitive, well researched redpill on this.
Tip for everyone, when somebody prefaces their post with [x]fag here and then proceeds to give you THE DEFINITIVE REDPILL on a complex topic with no clear consensus that is still being actively researched and discussed by the scientific community, you have not received THE DEFINITIVE REDPILL on that topic. You have been fed a line by somebody who is certainly not a credible expert in [x] (and is very possibly a fucking undergrad).

Cite?

porn only leads to gay fetish if you're gay though.
No straight man ever looks up male on male assfucking just for a goof.

I call BS.

How do you explain all the men turning into faggots in jail?

> That means if you pulled out your Y chromosome, you would develop as a female.

No, a human with just a Y wouldnt even form into a human.

> remember that mammals are female BY DEFAULT
Ive never brought into this BS

>But can it be reversed? And how?

No. Option 1 is hormone therapy in early pregnancy which is a no-no. Option 2 is immunosuppressant therapy in early pregnancy which is an even bigger no-no.

My sister has severe arthritis. Her doctor said recent evidence indicates immunosuppressant are safe to take for pregnant women who already take them for arthritis.

People are not born muslim, jew, christin, gay or trans or serial killers or leaders etc. Its developed through actions of childhood and mass consumed propoganda and shit food. The more crazy porn, fast food and propoganda that is easy acsessable to the youth the more gay.

>Going to (((psychiatrist)))
>Tell him I'm gay
>Ask him to help me fix it
>He just wants me to go to a gay social club and meet other fags to accept myself
I don't watch porn, tried prayer and did my own electroshock therapy but it didn't work. Personally I think it's genetic, I have a fag and a dyke in my family, but I never met either. I wonder if it's some kind of mechanism for population control. I would participate in studies but people seem repulsed by the idea of studying it.

> That means if you pulled out your Y chromosome, you would develop as a female.
>No, a human with just a Y wouldnt even form into a human.

I was generalizing for brainlets. Here's some more reading if you're not a brainlet explaining what I meant.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testis-determining_factor

> remember that mammals are female BY DEFAULT
>Ive never brought into this BS

This is basic stuff man, there a whole host of disorders that cause XY humans to develop as females if a Y chromosome active gene is dysfunctional.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

Fucking wizards, man

Our bodys are avatars for our thoughts. The physical you isnt shit, your not born A xgroupx. The body realy just a machine to get what the mind wants, and the gay stuff also political, capitalist, entertainment stuff is just a big distraction from what people truly want. Outside the relm of psychological needs pyramid thers 2 people. They want contact with extra terrestials and god.

And what about transgender people? Why are they transgender? And can it be cured?
I'm a trannie myself. I like girls though, I don't get aroused by guys at all. I consider myself a transgender lesbian woman. I'm not going to take hormones or have a surgery, I don't feel like I need it. I don't dress like a woman, I don't behave like a woman - I just feel like a woman, and that's it, but I'm OK with my body and with how people perceive me.
Why is that?

Makes sense, and seems to coroborate what my gay friend told me: he really lacks the arousal men associate with seeing a female body.
I'd like to know your take on why lesbian happens though. And, are women more on a bisexual spectrum than men?

>How do you explain all the men turning into faggots in jail?

I think it would be more of a way to either assert dominance or relieve yourself, not really a genuine attraction to men.

I think it's pretty alpha to not give a shit and just do you; gay, straight, or whatever.

Is it alpha to be a trannie?

HSTS is gay erasure.

> hormones
maybe
> plastics
touching plastic doesn't make food poisonous. how does polyethylene become the gay gene?
> chemicals
meaningless statement, everything but complete vacuum is a chemical

Nice post But even better one, by an alleged neiroscience fag

I want to add to the current overwhelming evidence that gay is not a choice

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1887219/

Love/Sexual orientation part of the brain is the hypothalamus
Heterosexuals hypothalamus are different male from female.
It is observed that homosexuals males have a female shaped hypothalamus, and vice-versa.

It has been scientifically proven with actual physical evidence in the brain that gay people have no choice.

Gay is not a choice.
Saying otherwise goes against scientific consensus and the scientific method

You stop when the person is self aware enough to recognize that they have a mental illness and will voluntarily not spread their own genes for the good of humanity. There is a difference between a high functioning autist ( which by definition includes most of this board ) and an entirely retarded children who will still be shitting diapers as an adult. I'm pretty sure most people here would rather be euthanized than have to live as a vegetable after a car accident, so why the fuck are we not doing the same with kids who WILL live their entire lives as vegetables? Because the mom cant stand the idea of seeing her kid get put down for its own sake? To me this shit is really fucking unfair for the child and the society that is going to have to pay to keep alive.

The fact that a lot of "prodigies" tend to be fucked up in certain ways does not change my view on this matter, although I might have exaggerated with faggots because I would be lying if I said I knew what made people enjoy cock. However, we also have no fucking idea what makes a high IQ or creative individual. Plenty of people who were known prodigies ended up having fuck up children. However, I think that prodigies are incidental. Results of the world around them. I'm pretty much convinced that Orwell would have written 1984 with or without the need to have a dick in his bum. In my opinion, removing the bad genes does not mean removing the good things that come with those genes. It just means improving the lives of future prodigies.

I'm talking out of my ass btw. I have no fucking idea how any of this actually works. I don't even know if the world would be better off without mental illness, but it sure sounds like those diseases are causing a emotional distress and pain to many people and not just the actual victims of mental illness.

...

People that are addicted to porn at a young age are more prone to become homosexual,really makes you think.

homosexuality is supposed to be a an extreme rarity.

in the animal kingdom, it's insanely rare, usually only fucked up retarded animals do gay shit. (albeit, some animals have a higher frequency of "gayness" than others (((allegedly))))

C. E. Roselli and F. Stormshak

2009

The domestic ram is used as an experimental model to study early programming of the neural mechanisms which underlie homosexuality, developing from the observation that approximately 8% of domestic rams are sexually attracted to other rams (male-oriented) when compared to the majority of rams which are female-oriented. In many species, a prominent feature of sexual differentiation is the presence of a sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN) in the preoptic hypothalamus, which is larger in males than in females.
Roselli et al. discovered an ovine SDN (oSDN) in the preoptic hypothalamus that is smaller in male-oriented rams than in female-oriented rams, but similar in size to the oSDN of females. Neurons of the oSDN show aromatase expression which is also smaller in male-oriented rams versus female-oriented rams, suggesting that sexual orientation is neurologically hard-wired and may be influenced by hormones. However, results failed to associate the role of neural aromatase in the sexual differentiation of brain and behavior in the sheep, due to the lack of defeminization of adult sexual partner preference or oSDN volume as a result of aromatase activity in the brain of the fetuses during the critical period.

Having said this, it is more likely that oSDN morphology and homosexuality may be programmed through an androgen receptor that does not involve aromatisation. Most of the data suggests that homosexual rams, like female-oriented rams, are masculinized and defeminized with respect to mounting, receptivity, and gonadotrophin secretion, but are not defeminized for sexual partner preferences, also suggesting that such behaviors may be programmed differently. Although the exact function of the oSDN is not fully known, its volume, length, and cell number seem to correlate with sexual orientation, and a dimorphism in its volume and of cells could bias the processing cues involved in partner selection. More research is needed in order to understand the requirements and timing of the development of the oSDN and how prenatal programming effects the expression of mate choice in adulthood.

Prenatal Programming of Sexual Partner Preference: The Ram Model

My view is, due to it's extreme rarity in nature, every instance of gay behavior should be ATTEMPTED to be corrected.

If the kid remains a low-T faggot fairy, then he's hopeless and he gets the official stamp of PERMANANT FAG.

It's runaway perversion combined with OCD/Autism like qualities.

It has existed for thousands of years

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#cite_ref-48

I don't agree with the "being gay is a choice" thing simply because I can't imagine why a man would want to fuck some sweaty dude ass.

Shit is gross.

I challenge you to masturbate to the weirdest porn you can find for an entire day.

By the end of the day you will be a different person, you will view yourself differently. You'll feel polluted and your identity will be in jeopardy.

You're just a retard

youtu.be/6k2FkUF41AA

How about I not do that. I'd rather stay sane.

>One species of rare birds has a high frequency of homosexuality.

I already said this. Also do the (((gay swans))) have butt-sex or are they just swimming together raising adopted juveniles?

I don't know if that's exactly gay, that just sounds like some MGTOW shit.

My point exactly. That's the choice element.

By the 21st century, only Niggers practiced it.

>steal nest
>have threesome with female
>push bitch out and raise her kid

Are black swans the CHADS of the animal kingdom?

I was really miserable before I realized I was a woman. Now I feel free. Women are superior in every possible way, they're encouraged to socialize and be successful, and do whatever the hell they want. Unlike males. So now I find it easier to interact with people and get shit done. I found a girlfriend. It really empowers to know the truth about yourself.

Homosexuality in human males is caused by desensitization to normal sexual stimuli. That is the main reason homosexuals engage in such extreme sex acts (bug-chasing, hardcore BDSM, anal rimming, scat etc). Normal sex, AKA penis in vagina, the way most humans have had sex since the dawn of time until the advent of our Weimar-porn-culture, is simply not grotesque enough to trigger arousal. So the homosexual male has to violate taboos in order to achieve the same "dirty" feeling that normal sex should naturally create. Perhaps one reason normal sex is not "dirty" enough is because we use so much soap in modern civilization and thus we cannot smell one another's natural stank.

Homosexuality in human females is more about emotions. "Oh, she understands me, she's a woman too!"--"Let's cuddle!" Or sometimes if they're butch, it's about testosterone making them more open to a broader variety of sexual experiences. And in that case it would certainly be sexual. But they would not engage in raunchy sex or anything that would actually cause long-term damage. S&M play would be primarily psychological, not grotesque.

And we also have to look at low-T, because that leads to erectile dysfunction. ED is associated with all forms of sexual paraphilia from homosexuality to lust murder.

I tell my pro gay friends that this narrative is actually a stronger argument for gay rights than the "I'm born addicted to butt pillaging and there's nothing I can do" story they sell everyone on.

Leaving "gay" as a personal sexual preference frames argument as keeping the government from regulating people's sex lives, which is more sympathetic then men fucking each other in the streets becayse they are genetically wired to be degenerate. Born this way implies there is a genetic defect that causes homosexuality, it implies there's a cure. Keeping it as a fetish makes it a matter of respecting a person's life decisions, it softens the agenda, which I guess is why they don't want to run with that narrative.

So do the homo swans have gay bird sex?
Or do the just raise the offspring with out the female? I'm wondering if this isn't more Swans Going Their Own Way.

Justifying homosexuality through genetics began as a simple exercise in thought, a "what if?" The more people began to use it as a justification, the more it became a necessity. Soon gay advocates found themselves defending a scientifically untenable position, backed up by the thousands of liberal partisans in academia and science who ALSO couldn't justify their preconceived dogma of a "gay gene."

Sexuality is like weight. It is a choice, but you can't just change it like a light switch, it takes work over time.

I had a friend in high school who was 100% gay. He had dildoes and took it up the ass. He had a couple boyfriends. Later got into a relationship with a girl. Now he says he's straight and the gay thing was just a phase.

I was straight and joked in high school that we should take all the gays and put them on their own island. I also made my best friend promise me that if I turned gay, that he was to end me. Five years later after swimming in a pool of degeneracy, I'm a fag with a boyfriend. Now I'm climbing out of that pit, but it isn't easy when the world fights against you. They tell you wrong is right, and right is wrong. It's like trying to leave a cult.

Besides my anecdotal evidence, we can see prisons change people's sexuality. They go in straight, then a large portion come out gay. You have to either admit it's a choice, or say gay people are disproportionately criminals, or claim homosexuality is actually closer to 1/3 people, but only 1/50 have "discovered" it about themselves.

Additionally, 23andme found no statically significant gene that is "gay." (((science))) keeps coming up with hypotheses, but each time they have been debunked. Simple identical twins where one is gay and one is straight is enough to rule out a genetic/womb factor.

Literally caused by hormonal imbalance. Not even in the slightest does the study suggest homosexuality is not a choice.

Not the guy claiming to be into neuroscience, but I love to spread my little theory:

I remember, there was some study conducted about female body types and how men reacted to them. In short, the study showed, that men are in general attracted to a certain body type. Think of a normal distribution with most men wanting the same body type.
When the study was repeated with women the results were all over the place. There was no 'average' body type most women were attracted to. They all liked or disliked body types pretty randomly. Just like most men learn, women are interested in other things like social status and other non imprinted factors.

So my theory is, the undifferentiated sexual dimorphic nucleus women have is actually lacking a strong imprinting. That would explain, why there are so many frigid bitches and why sexual imagery does not work at the same level it does with men. If heterosexual men have an imprint level of 10of10, women have like a 2of10. They have a basic idea of being attracted to a male body and a stiff cock, but not the same way men can spot a fine ass in a crowd from 500 meters away.

So, to my theory. Women are more likely to be bi or 'lesbian' because besides women developing a male sexual dimorphic nucleus, most women already have a low imprint for men. The difference between their attraction level for men to the attraction for other women is only 2 on my made up scale. A heterosexual man on the other hand has a difference of 10. It is simply much harder for a heterosexual male brain to trick the man, than it is for the woman.
Tha paired with the main attractor for women being social status, personal preference and such factors, means leads to women easily picking a partner, even a female one, for emotional reasons. Just think of all the 'phase' lesbians who ride the cunny carousel until their maternal instincts kick in.

...

Sexual imagery is less important for women because they have a lower sex drive. Men have always been the prime initiators of sex.

Women aren't attracted to a wider variety of men anyway. It's common knowledge that women are attracted EXCLUSIVELY to the top 20% of men (in regards to face and body). It's simply less important to them because, again, sex is less of a factor for women than men. The dopamine rush men get from sex and orgasm can't be compared to the one women get. Men are, in a way, addicted to orgasm, and we seek what is most likely to make us orgasm.

Because then it would open up the idea that if you can become one thing, you can un-become it.

Imagine a world where retards that became leftists were able to take medication to become normal again. They can't have that.

Why are the 'choice' faggots always ameritards? The whole 'every gay is gay because of choice' was propagated in your nation by extreme religious nutjobs and you still eat that shit up.

Read this: I am not saying you are wrong. I am merely saying, you are arguing too much in black/white when saying it is always choice.

>gene means it can't be a choice
Has it ever occured to you, that there is a biological explanation that does not invalidate the argument of some people simply developing a fetish?
You are basically arguing in black and white, when in fact all three explanations could be true: fetish/choice/social factors - gene - antibodies of the mother

pnas.org/content/early/2017/12/05/1705895114.abstract

Yeahyeah, but can't this be interlinked with what I wrote? They have a lower sex drive, because their imprinting is weaker and their imprinting does not need to be stronger, because they have a lower sex drive.

Men being the proactive factor means they need a good idea of their target, else they end up fucking the next tree. Women however do not so there was never evolutionary pressure to develop a strong imprinting.

I'd be careful calling other people faggots when you fantasize about men dicking you in the ass on a regular basis.

I'm not really saying it's a choice either. I'm more of the opinion that it's an overarching cultural disease and that it imprints itself upon young impressionable minds. Seeing it accepted all over the media propagates it beyond a reasonable level and leads to the kind of shit we see on college campuses today where weirdos with red and green hair demand to be called Xir. We simply wouldn't see this if we still lived an agrarian farming lifestyle. It's not genetic.

I'm glad you mentioned prenatal antibodies. The more male children a mother has, the less testosterone each successive child will have. Low-T is associated with faggotry (and erectile dysfunction). I mentioned earlier that we should look into this so you don't really have a leg to stand on when you tell me that I'm thinking dogmatically or like a religious zealot. I'm looking for multiple explanations of this phenomenon, not trying to jam my philosophy down other people's throats. I can't say the same for gay gene advocates however.

>They have a lower sex drive, because their imprinting is weaker
No, they have a lower sex drive because they have TEN TIMES LESS TESTOSTERONE. Save your amateur psychology, I don't need to debunk any more crap.

A few points:

23 and me is not doing real science. Real genetic testing costs thousands of dollars. They are doing cheap, shitty SNP genotyping with a microarray.

You are not entirely wrong in that human sexuality is like weight. Human beings have very complicated sexuality. One very basic aspect of it is visual attraction, it can be overridden from a behavioral perspective but it's not going to go away. There are of course a litany of other things that sexually excite people, which can explain your and your friend's flip flopping and the prison thing.

Also identical twins having opposite sexuality doesn't rule out the womb factor. Also genes don't really work like "on" or "off" except in a few cases, most of the times you have multiple (a lot) copies of genes that code for proteins and they have a summative effect.

If you want to argue that some guys are gay by choice and some aren't, that's fine by me. I was just against the notion that *all* gays have *zero* choice, which is a lie that perpetuates that you must belong to a group and fight against any suggestion otherwise. Additional it frames religion, family, purity, and traditionalism as the enemy. I don't know if that's different in other places in the world, but across the different states I've lived in, it has been.

SNP? Microarray?

What's the better way to measure genetics and why is it better?

...