What the evidence indicates is that congenital factors strongly influence sexual orientation outcomes with some subpopulations more influenced by these factors than others.
Which I have said, numerous times, I essentially agree with, except for the use of the term "strong." There is not strong, or robust evidence of such primary influence as to biological factors. I would rather say, "congenital factors condition and affect sexual orientation outcomes, in conjunction with other complex variables, with some subpopulations more influenced by these factors than others."
It also is clear that it isn't choosen in the same way someone decides if they are going to date someone.
But homosexual behavior is, and especially so with the various idiosyncratic sexual personae one finds in the Gay subculture, what I would call psychosexual affect
, a variety of forms of sub-cultural sexual role playing, and other various highly stylized elements of the "gay" identity and subculture that must be modeled, learned, and practiced to become natural and internalized.
The psychoanalytic idea that Droopy brought up in a recent thread of early family dynamics being a major factor is long-discredited like the "refrigerator-mom" theory of autism.
Elements of the specific Freudian view of this certainly has been - as has Freudianism generally, but the idea that early family dynamics are key in the development of SSA - as in much else - has hardly been "discredited." Metaphysical materialists/philosophical positivists like E., who cling to the worldview of secular naturalism/humanism like a baby monkey to a cloth surrogate stuffed animal mother, need desperately to believe their own internal myths of origin, fall, and redemption, for to look outside that box risks flinging humans - and E. himself - from their lofty perch as "the measure of all things" to the relative ontological status of "the dust of the earth," where they must reevaluate their self deification in light of their actual condition within the cosmos.
How odd that Droopy's long, intense history of study on subjects he pontificates on also can be gathered by skimming crank ideas on popular fundamentalist websites right now.
Neither lying regarding my views (which are my own, have nothing to do with Christian fundamentalism (they are LDS based) and yes, come as a result of an adult lifetime of study, reflection, and observation) and their origins, or mentally masturbating yourself into a frenzy of moral and intellectual self congratulation at your own anointed secularist brilliance is going to do what you need these tactics to do - circumvent the hard thinking and hard issues involved in seriously grappling with homosexuality in its modern cultural and political context.
But even if the family dynamics theory were true, early environmental impacts on sexual development don't argue in favor of "choice" - if anything it argues against it.
Wrong. Human sexuality appears to be fairly plastic within the womb and for at least a short period during infancy and a bit beyond. I know of no evidence that sexual orientation - heterosexual or homosexual - is "set" in vitro. And it is plastic and pliable enough to be modified, distorted, and redirected perceptually in the early years of life.
While there is no doubt that heterosexuality is the "default" position of the human species, as it is with all organic life on earth, "orientation" involves more than general biological tendencies and calibration. Actual psychological dynamics - intrapersonal psychological dynamics - where perception of self, elements of personality, self concept, and highly idiosyncratic and unique ideations and perceptions of one's own sexuality reside, are where "sexual orientation" is ultimately centered (as opposed to "sex" as a purely physiological matter) and this is, at an early age (and beyond, for that matter, in another sense) plastic, flexible, and open to modification and conditioning.
That aside, I don't think people choose their beliefs. While a person may decide if they are going to attend Church today, they don't really get to decide if they think Mormonism is correct or not. So it isn't a choice in that sense. But I don't see why it matters either way.
This position is a contemporary variation of the historic philosophical tendencies of positivism, reductionism, and philosophical materialism generally. Its implications are a thoroughgoing and relentless moral, value, and epistemological relativism (essentially, nihilism).
You've just checkmated yourself, if you think you have left yourself an hole through which to crawl back to any "truth value" in propositions the subject matter of which is anything beyond gross empirical sense data.