This would be correct if identical twins WERE absolutely identical, but, unfortunately, they are not. That is because while DNA can be 99.9999% the same, no DNA is "identical". So comes your "almost 100%". Basing the concept that "homosexuality is not something one is born with" on an "almost" is close, but no cigar. The ENVIRONMENTAL effects that you refer to are the same socio-cultural pressures that I referred to in the choices made by BISEXUAL individuals, which you (and, by the way, all religious quacks who claim to be able to 'cure' homosexuality) deny exists.

 

You are being facetious. Identical twins have the same genotype. After all, they come from the same fertilized egg. While their DNA isn't completely identical, from the point of view of what "genes" a person has, it is exactly the same. The idea that something making someone gay could hide in that difference is rather astonishing to say the least.

Discrepancies are partially do the nature that when DNA copies itself, mistakes are made. There is also an aspect of randomisation regarding how DNA instructions are expressed. For example, while identical twins have the same instructions for producing a finger print, the actual fingerprints produced would be different. It's reasons such as this that you cannot predetermine that someone will turn out gay from birth. Even if you used a 100% clone that was exactly the same genetically, random factors, and environmental pressures would produce different people.

 

According to the famous philosopher Lady Gaga, they're born that way.

 

Sorry that I am being facetious by pointing out a flaw.

Brainwash away.

Obviously, if one "identical twin" had blue eyes of one shade and the other had blue eyes of a darker shade, environment would change that somehow.

Environment certainly has an effect on perception and decision-making, but it does not have an effect on physical imprint. A Chinese orphan does not BECOME CAUCASIAN by being adopted into an Anglo-American family in Iowa, but environment will affect the orphan's perceptions and attitudes. If the orphan was BORN BISEXUAL, the attitudes and religious connections could certainly make him or her CHOOSE to be "only heterosexual", but if her or she was BORN HOMOSEXUAL, he or she would have to hide it their entire lives or disappoint their adoptive parents, because environment CANNOT CHANGE THAT.

 

You are being rather religious in your answers. You seem to have faith that sexuality is instilled in someone from birth with zero evidence. You don't understand genetics yet flaunt it as if it were some self evident observation. You also don't understand what is meant by environmental pressures. I don't mean things like "growing up without a dad", or "forcing someone to recite bible verses". Environment affects everything, we live in a probabilistic universe governed by quantum mechanics. Random chance is the game, the same genes do not express themselves in exactly the same way in different people. Like I said before, the same DNA produces different fingerprints. You cannot predetermine that a baby will be gay because of his/her genetic make-up. One day it may be possible with genetics to approximate whether someone is genetically more likely to become gay, but never conclusively.

I'm not sure why you object to my position. I'm making no moral judgement against gay people, nor am I saying that they had any choice in their sexuality, or even that anyone else had any influence in steering their sexuality. However, I do get the sense that you are opting for the politically correct liberal opinion. Primarily because it is the one that diametrically opposes that of the Christian conservative. It seems to me that you hold that position because people born gay would in no way be responsible for becoming gay, and no person could be blamed for making them gay. That strikes me as a position that views homosexuality as some sort of disability or burden. Rather than just accepting homosexuality as a natural behaviour akin to a person's fondness of a favourite flavour or colour.

 

Anyone who says it is a choice I´d like to ask, so when did you choose to be straight? It´s such a stupid assumption. If it was a choice I don´t think so many people would choose to suffer under such drastic discrimination.

 

Of course, you are correct, since you can't be wrong. I know nothing. Obviously, environment and genetics has left me a blank slate with no knowledge of anything. It is a good thing the world has you to instruct everyone in everything. All hail!

 

Oh, please do not argue with the omniscient.

 

The response is usually a variant on claiming "all people are straight by default, but some choose to be gay instead." Very rarely do the idiots behind this assumption ever realise that they have no reasoning behind it.

 

But DD DOES have reasoning behind it!

Have not you become enlightened to his all-knowing logic? Genes (DNA) matter, but only to prove that you can't prove that homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality (which, according to him, must not exist) are inherent. Everyone (according to this logic) is a total blank slate and environment combines with genes to determine whether one is gay or not. So, if you are born with your own set of genes, you don't choose to be gay, it is because it rained on a certain Tuesday in May while "September Song" played on the radio in a passing car while you tied your shoelaces in a doorway.

 

Ump, did you forget to put your glasses on? How many times did I explicitly say that being gay was not a choice, and that no one has any control over anyone's sexuality?

Seriously, you are borderline retarded at times.

 

When is a baby gay by your standards? The moment of conception ? Does daddy give mommy a gay sperm to put it in a gay egg ?

A gay gene does not hide in the inconceivably small difference between identical twins. Combinations of genes give instructions on how to build bones tissues and organs. It provides a blueprint for a brain, but it doesn't wire up all the connections. Who someone is as person is dependent on their environment, how those genes provide a body to react to that environment, and great deal of random chance.

 

A baby is not born with sexual desire for anyone, by the way.
From the off it is designed for biological hetero upon later development as per the gender.

Sexual desire comes from the late maturing of the sex organs producing adult hormones which creates a transition from sexually immature to sexually mature - physically and attempted mentally which seems to fail in some people. The change is called puberty. Only pedophiles think babys are born gay.

The twins prove that it is not so much a genetic program for faulty gene eradication but personal environment and choices made.
Do people chose to be exhomosexuals?

 

I made a choice to be lesbian. I was straight never even kissed another girl until I was in college.

 

The only choice I made was to stop pretending that, when I found "the right girl", I could just pack up all those past feelings as if I were putting away winter clothes. In other words, I chose to stop fooling myself.

 

More idiocy.

 

It is not possible to actually LEARN anything from this nonsense, but I AM surprised that no one seems to think that bisexuality exists.

 

Did you choose to find girls attractive? Or did you find them attractive regardless, and merely choose to act on it?

 

This Billboard is in my hometown and there is a huge controversy around it. It is hateful, hurtful, stupid, some agree with it, other ask whats the point and most people just want to ignore it. I have always wondered if homosexuality is genetic, then is it somehow a faulty gene as the purpose of the species is to recreate itself and gay people would have a hard time producing offspring. On the other hand there doesn't seem to be a shortage of gay people so it is really a complicated issue.