Gay by genes or by choice is beside the point since what matters in terms of the law is how society experiences the effect of the gayness. In other words, if two men marry, society doesn’t know the root cause of their choice. All society knows is that a gay marriage, e.g., produces no children, which has a substantive effect on society. To start dwelling on the cause and not the effect lets the left get its foot in the door with bogus arguments about discrimination.
Repost-
I read a theory on Freep that has been stuck in my mind for about a week or so. I have tried to locate the post so I can quote the person who wrote it but I simply can”t find it. (If you are reading this, I apologize. I really tried.)
The theory basically said that homosexuals are stuck at a level of sexual immaturity beyond which most people move and become heterosexual. (Little kids aren’t yet sexual so they don’t qualify as homo or hetero for this argument.)
The point is - those of us who are hetero, do you remember when you were very small? Way back before puberty? When sex was something you didn’t even know about? What did you think of the opposite sex? If you were a boy you probably thought girls were icky. If you were a girl you probably thought boys were stupid. Then as puberty hit something began to change. You began to have feelings that weren’t there before. You began to feel attracted to the opposite sex. It was confusing and exciting at the same time.
The theory says that for whatever reason (Something different about their brains? Some psychological trauma?) people who are homosexual did not make this jump. They became sexual without losing their distaste for the opposite sex and maturing to the next level. They are adults with the sexual attitudes of children.
I found the idea interesting. It had never occurred to me before that homosexual attitudes towards the opposite sex were very similar to the attitudes held by prepubescent children.
I can say this though. My inclination is that I have a weakness for pretty redheaded women. I also currently have a steady girlfriend. Whether I go and accept that phone number from that redhead at the bar is a choice I make....which would cause bad consequences. Sleeping with that redhead would cause worse consequences and expose me as a untrustworthy snake - so I don't do that.
I married an identical twin. His brother was eventually revealed to be homosexual - which came as no surprise to me, even though he had had a live in girlfriend when I first met both twins.
Their parents’s marriage hade broken up when they were infants, and their father had not been in their lives much. Their mother treated them completely different from early childhood. One had been cosseted and spoiled and treated like a genius and encouraged to excel in school, the other had been treated as the ”man of the house” and encouraged to be strong and self-reliant. One became homosexual, the other a womanizer. Guess which was which.
These genes studies are a waste of time and money.
I know a woman who had 4 sons and 3 of them are homosexual. I knew them from the time the oldest one was 3 and he already acted gay. What bothered me was that she encouraged them to act like sissies. They used to pin towels around their heads to pretend they had long hair and pranced around like little girls and she thought it was cute. Their dad was brutal and mean and punished them for acting like girls. It was a mess.
I think there is a good case for homosexuality being an overexpression of Liberalism, itself merely an r-selected Reproductive Strategy, designed to best compete in an environment with a glut of resources (as opposed to Conservatism which is itself a K-selected Reproductive Strategy designed to successfully navigate a resource shortage). Check the two pages below I wrote on this.
Neurological commonalities between Liberals and Gays
Genetic commonalities between Liberals and Gays
All of that is based on earlier research I have amassed asserting Liberalism is a psychological adaptation to free resource availability, and Conservatism is an outgrowth of a psychology designed to confront resource shortage. Both have a genetic predisposition, and an element which is produced in response to the environment.
If this is correct, it will point to social factors which will increase homosexuality, since they will be the same factors which will increase the expression of an r-strategy (stressed single mothers (maternal stress in rodents during pregnancy and early rearing triggers a shift towards r, probably through epigenetic effects), no father, free resource availability at adulthood, cultural hypersexuality, lack of amygdala stimulation in life (such as by having to compete, work for reward, endure discipline, conform to group norms or be castigated, etc.) It will also explain why you suddenly have manly females who tend to desire feminine men, and effete men, who desire manly qualities in their mates. In animals it is called a reversal in sexual dimorphism which accomanies the r-strategy. Here, the gay r-man's desire for a manly r-female is just occaisionally, accidently overexpressed, as is the manly r-female's desire for an effminate male.
Today we have a hypersexualized environment where single moms are encouraged to work to raise their children alone, no one can be judged or castigated for anything, and Liberals try to see to it that no child ever sees their amygdala stimulated, be it through games of tag or dodgeball, or having to fit in with their peers, or simply seeing something deviant and acknowledging it. Combined with our national success removing any form of K-selection stress, all of this will increase homosexuality.
In short, the coming economic cleanse will probably clean a lot of this up, even without us working at it, by reintroducing the stimuli associated with K-selection and resource shortage, which will cause the population to adapt psychologically by becomming more K.
But once it does, we will need to work to maintain it. Letting a guy like George W. Bush get in as our representative, and just coddle Liberals for eight years is precisely the type of national amygdala-atrophying stimulus which will put us on the path we are on now. There was no castigation or amygdala stimulation of the left-leaners to drive them right, and as a result, today our moderates are leftists, our Leftists are fully detached from reality, and Homosexual couples adopting children is completely normal and fun.
Rome was very "open" as it began its collapse (due to an r-shift in the populace, in response to success). So these things swing back on their own. But when they do it involves a pain which could be avoided if we just prevented things from going this far in the first place, by being less tolerant of all r's to begin with.
I can’t get to the original article because you need a log in but this gives a quick over view of what that study said.They looked into the gay gene for about 20 years and deconstructed many studies that supported the gay gene theory and concluded there was no evidence it existed:
http://fathersforlife.org/gay_issues/gay_gene.htm
Parents and parenting play a role. So probably do genes, hormones, birth order, abuse, seduction, chance, habit.
But a lot of parents who understood and tried to avoid all the stereotypes -- tried not to be smothering and overprotective or distant and emotionally unavailable or brutal and abusive or judgmental and hypercritical -- still ended up with homosexual children.
From that I conclude that it has to be more complicated than people assumed a generation or two ago.