Before you read this post, let me clarify what I'm (not) saying. I'm not saying a person gets up one day and say "I feel as if I'd be gay today" and suddenly become homosexual. I'm saying that homosexuality is not nature, but rather influenced by the environment.
Homosexuality is not an inborn trait, but rather a chosen path. If homosexuals were indeed born homosexual, natural selection would get rid of the homosexual gene. Some argue, though, that homosexuality has been recently observed in lower animals; however, that's recently, meaning that there is still more years left for the gene to be fully gotten rid of. The strongest argument regarding homosexuality in lower animals would be that in a certain reptile species (some type of lizard, I don't remember its name). These species only have females; the females carry out what seems to be mating behavior just before they lay eggs. This, however, is necessary, unlike other homosexual behavior; thus, natural selection would not take out this 'gene', because without it the species cannot go on.
Another route proponents of the 'inborn homosexuality theory' take is in saying that environment does not affect whether someone is homosexual or not; thus, it's nature. These persons argue that many non-homosexuals come from homosexual families; however, these persons fail to realise that it is not necessarily the family, but rather the peers that have most influence on a young child's life. Furthermore, the family would not force the child to be homosexual, as society would look down upon this, and it would be a damage to their struggle for equal rights. Not that the peers force the child to be homosexual, but they, in a sense, convince them that homosexuality is 'cool', and, in the case of women, hot; it's the easiest way to be non-conformist and show your freedom/express yourself. It's like a low degree of peer pressure. Some argue that, as homosexuals, they cannot even envision themselves as heterosexuals. I believe this. If they have been homosexuals for a long time, it would be virtually impossible for them to be heterosexual; but this is because they have chosen homosexuality as their sexual identity. Once this is done in the identity vs. role confusion (I believe that's what it's called) stage of Erikson's stages of development, it is hard to go back; it is no different than if homosexuality really were a gene.
At this point I must entreat you to keep in mind that I am not against homosexual rights. Though I disagree with their actions, I do believe that people have a right to do what they want to do without being deprived of their societal rights, so long as what they're doing doesn't infringe upon other people's rights. I fail to see why people believe that homosexuals should not have equal rights, as they are humans, just like heterosexuals. Even so-called Christians are against homosexual rights, when their doctrine clearly states that God gave man freedom of choice.
To cut a long post short, homosexuals ought to have their rights; however, that does not mean that homosexuality is not a choice.
Feel free to cut my throat!![]()