I know you are very convinced of your opinion, so I will be very gentle. I have no wish to pick a fight with you.
1. No, if a person's sexual orientation is not genetic, it does NOT necessarily mean that they would have to choose. For example, I have known women who have been severely traumatized by childhood molestation. Whereas before the molests, they had typical straight thought associations, they came to associate men with the monsters who brutalized them and cannot have normal sexual relationships with them. Their normal heterosexual development was arrested and diverted. They have LEARNED to substitute lesbian love in its place. I have met these women, so don't tell me they don't exist. They have NO CHOICE in this matter, even though there is no genetic interplay. This is only one of many examples I could have given.
How do you know that they had typical sexual orientation and development, since you are claiming they were molested prior to maturity and the expression of sexuality? What evidence do you have for this? Have all the women you have met that were the victims of molestation turned to lesbianism? What if you have only met the percentage of these women that would have developed that aspect of sexuality anyway?
2. There are many reasons why a person can be gay due to biology that is not genetic. For example, it could be womb environment (hormones) at specific times during fetal development. This would not be a genetic thing, but an epigenetic condition or something to do with the mother. Surely you can see how this could be a possibility?
Biological reasons may not all be genetic, but this does not indicate a choice or learning on the part of the person expressing the trait. Epigenetic traits are associated with the packaging of the genes.
3. In most cases, people are set in their orientation just as you have described. But that is not true for all people. Some people are sexually amorphous, and have gone back and forth between one orientation and another. This is particularly common among females. We have many testimonies to this effect. I remember listening to a leader member of the LGBT community be interviewed by Dennis Prager -- she was very up front about how she had once been thoroughly straight, and had changed to being a lesbian in her college years. Those who are more amorphous are most prone to the influence of modern politics and media cullture--they are now more likely to develop a gay orientation where in ages past they would simply have defaulted to a straight orientation.
Being amorphous sexually or changing orientation at some point later in life does not mean that the condition is not biological. It may be that the person was following societal constraints and later felt no need to be constrained and expressed the true nature of their sexuality.
4. Your "genetic theory" is disproven by basic science. If genes were the end all and be all of homosexuality, then an identical twin who is gay would always have a gay twin. Right? Yet that is clearly not the case.
I would call it an hypothesis and it is not without scientific support. There is evidence that it is genetic in nature in some instances, just not every instance. In twins it could be an epigenetic trait expressed in one, but not the other.
While it may not be entirely genetic, that basis cannot be discarded. In any case, there are many instances where sexuality is not a choice. It was not a choice for me. I just like girls. I never even thought about it.
I'm not even saying that there is no genetic component. All I'm saying is that it is more complicated than ascribing being gay to one factor alone.
Ok. I would agree. It is complicated. But the evidence does support that some of it is not by choice, but based on biological parameters.
