I agree that some things can probably effect children's sexual preference. I believe a majority of gays are born that way, but I also think that children who are abused sexually often become gay or at least very confused.
I'll also agree that there are acceptions to the instances I stated, but I live in a metropolitan area with a substantial gay population and for every masculine macho-man gay there are 20 feminine gays; and for every hot, feminine lesbian there are about 100 butch lesbians.
You offered, "I believe a majority of gays are born that way" ... no, but the vast majority are sex addicts and sex addiciton is just as devastating as other addictions. Sadly, the disease known as liberalism has chosen to champion degeneracy in many forms, thus salving the pricked souls of the degenerate in order to prevent the still small voice from being heard.
Irving Bieber, before the gay cabal rolled the APA, was interested in just such questions, in pursuit of answers to which he ran a "longitudinal" study in the 1950's and early 1960's in which he examined numbers of homosexual men and tried to determine whether they could become heteronormal through therapy, as it was practiced back then. His bottom line, after years of work, was that there was a split in the population he studied, with about 30% of his subjects being hard-core gay, what you might call essentially or biologically gay, and the rest showed varying degrees of susceptibility to reparative therapy.
Nowadays "reparative therapy" is a swear word at all three APA's, which are politically dominated by homosexuals and take inflexibly pro-homosexual, essentialist positions on all questions of homosexuality and sexual norms. Bieber was abused for a number of years, usually ridiculed as "old medicine" or "old psychiatry", an old fuddy-duddy who wasn't with the program like all us modern gay-friendly mental-health caregivers. That, of course, was politically-driven buncombe.
Now the issue has been reopened by no less than Robert Spitzer, who was one of the movers and shakers of the gay coup, along with Judson Marmor and a few others (Marmor became president of the American Psychological Association in 1973, shortly after the coup). Spitzer has done new work and stated publicly that his working conclusions don't support the essentialist position, that there is as yet no discoverable "gay gene" or histological evidence for essential homosexuality.
Essentialism versus fluidity has been the big cognitive dissonance in the gay movement over the last 20 years. The scientists and lawyers insist on essentialism, because they're pushing a strategy that will try to use the U.S. Supreme Court to promote a series of court edicts announcing the moral equality of sexual deviance with sexual normality, using as their model the civil rights movement. They are trying to equate homosexuality with African heredity as an irreducible attribute.
The literary, cultural, and "social studies" gays, on the other hand, have articulated a position that sexual identity is fluid, changeable, and in the end irrelevant, and have tried to minimize differences by emphasizing ambiguity, thus directly contradicting the essentialists.
I think it's telling, that these guys want the Supreme Court to hand them a total victory over the other 97% of society, even though they aren't on the same page with one another.