Why would a straight person chose to be anything other than straight?
I was just on a Facebook discussion where someone said being gay was a choice. I answered back by saying: As a straight person why would I chose to be anything other than straight? I have zero interest in men. I think the only way someone might logically come to the conclusion that it is a choice to be gay, is if they have some kind of attraction to both sexes.
= new reply since forum marked as read
to terms with this attraction toward the same sex? They have no way to argue back which is so much fun!
Why would anyone not choose to be gay if we had a choice?
Men and women compliment each other in many ways, but consider how many ways the sexes are more aligned with each other.
A friend once said we would all be lesbians if not for the penis. 
I can understand why someone would choose not to be straight.
I just don't think it happens much.
"Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night."
Woody Allen.
Studies regarding heredity are not pseudo-scientific. Now, the crap that you posted above...
I am under the impression it is a biological orientation based on heredity-- much like being left or right handed (or tall or short) in that there is no choice involved, although social mores did often coerce left handed people to act like right handed people, but coercion isn't really a choice, and acting like a right handed person isn't quite the same as being a right handed person.
"The harm in trying to FORCE heredity..."
I think you're confusing forcing a thing, and merely observing the reality of a thing. We are not forcing a heritary explanation, merely observing and accepting it.
Additionally, simply accepting a premise based on biology does not in any way deny the perspective of also basing that same premise on civil rights and equality...
Experimentation doesn't make you gay but you only get 3 chances. 
but being a bigot, being a homophobe, is a choice.
Also, being a Christian (or any other religion) is a choice. Being a pro-gay Christian, or an anti-gay Christian, is also a choice.
(btw Quixote, it is "choose" not "chose"
by means of which Rational Empiricism extracts knowledge/information from data (and that must be VALID data about sexual orientation in this case, which would therefore include 2 factors: biology + environment, also known as nature + nurture because it includes things such as parents or other caregivers and society/culture that interact with biology) is Descriptive Statistics.
Here's a gross oversimplification of the issues:
Descriptive Statistics operates upon mathematical theories that, amongst other things, predict that:
- IF you could construct a valid & reliable test by means of which to identify & describe the appropriate biological and environmental factors that result in one's sexual identity;
- IF you select an appropriate sample of the sexual orientation population to administer your test to and that testing therefore yields the valid and reliable nature:nurture traits that affect sexual-orientation;
- Descriptive Statistics will reveal a distribution of the variations in the determining nature:nurture traits in the subject sample, and hence, population, and that distribution will range from strong instances of those traits to weak instances;
- AND IF the test subject sample is UNLIMITED, the data range will eventually show that in about half of your subjects the result of the interaction between nature:nurture was determined by the nature factors, biology, and in about half of your subjects the resutlt of the interaction between nature:nurture was determined by the nurture factors, which includes the sorts of things that affect the choices we make;
- Within those two subsets, i.e. stronger nature vs. stronger nurture, there will be variations in the nature:nurture traits from those whose result was as nearly 100% as possible determined by the dominant factor, be it nature or nurture, to those in which the result was determined by a relationship between the traits, nature:nurture, that approaches 50:50. Descriptive Statistics predicts that MOST of the data will range around that 50:50.
To me this means that if we could produce comprehensive complete KNOWLEDGE of the nature:nurture dynamic, by means of Rational Empiricism and Descriptive Statistics, we'd find out that there are two minority subsets: one as nearly 100% as possible determined by nature/BIOLOGY - and - another minority as nearly 100% as possible determined by nurture/CHOICE - AND -we'd see a majority of the data would show that the relative strength/determination of the relevant driver, be it nature or nurture, declines from those strong instances of those traits, are less and less determined by either one, until the relationship becomes more and more arbitrary (or, actually, determined by something, possibly transitory and hence unreliable, that we aren't testing).
As I have, as an openly gay man. There is no person or thing that would make me EVER go back into the closet. Period.
Which means a lot of people aren't going to like me or be comfortable around me. Fine with me. 'I've got a life to live. You don't want to be part of it, there's the door.' (That's the attitude I adopt with just about everyone I come into contact.)
. . . that, and I honor both Nature and (free) Choice.
To me, what authentically matters is how people treat one another.
I have Attention Deficit Disorder. Did I choose to 'become', or 'act' ADD? Hell no, I was born with this condition.
A former friend of mine from Va. by the name of Eric had autism, Asperger's to be exact. Did he choose to be Aspie? Was there some thought that popped into his mind that made him go, "Hmm, perhaps I'll be autistic today."? Absolutely not.
Same thing with sexual orientation, or skin color, etc.......you can't change the circumstances of your birth. Just how you live your life.
as I know you, that is.
Even after they baptize you after you die!
