The ‘gay gene’ theory has had its ups and downs. It was first proposed by a California professor back several decades ago (the sixties?) and the gay community attacked him and the theory. Being gay was deemed to be a lifestyle choice by proud gays at the time.
However, that changed with the advent of AIDs in the 70s & 80s. After all, there wouldn’t be any research funding for solutions to a lifestyle choice. The solution would simply be “Quit doing that and you won’t catch Aids.”
Ah, but if it were a genetic mandate, then the Aids sufferer had no responsibility for his malady. He was a victim of his genes and the rest of society needed to assist in developing a research program that would save all these victims.
Lots of research money was forthcoming after that gay gene argument was put forth and you don’t hear anything about a lifestyle choice much any more.
I agree with your entire post, part of which is reproduced here. I went to art school 'way back in the day and of course met many homosexuals. Their focus was on "being outrageous!" Many were guys who had poor relationships with their parents. "Being" gay was a way that they could place themselves beyond the pale of parental reproach. It was a way to force an artificial barrier between themselves and their families, sometimes because of rage at abuse; other times because of an overwhelming and inappropriate mother who tried to turn her son into a husband emotionally.
I read recently that the monies spent on AIDS research and support far exceed the funding for breast cancer, which affects exponentially more people than AIDS, often devastating entire families if a young mother dies.