I think people are born gay. Just about everyone grows up with the the idea of marrying someone of the opposite sex and starting a family. Just about everyone grows up seeing the everday hate, discrimination, and violence committed against homosexuals. Just about everyone grows up wanting to live as stress-free a life that they can scrape by with. Growing up, what would make someone CHOOSE to do the opposite?

This a question that's been asked in some form or another literally hundreds of times here on AB alone, not to mention how much I hear/read this outside of AB. I am a lesbian, and I know I made no "choice" in being so. None of the stereotypical "reasons" people like to spout off all of the time apply to me nor any other LGBT person I know. I was born to straight parents. I didn't know anyone gay growing up...not until long after I knew I was. I was never raped or molested. I do NOT "hate" men (I have lots of male friends). Those who don't know much about homosexuals, or especially those who don't like homosexuals continually claim we make a "choice" in the matter, and/or that something "happens" to us in our childhood that makes us "turn" gay. I can tell you it's total nonsense. Ask a straight person when they "chose" their sexual orientation and see how they answer that!

I know people who are definitely clear they were born gay, and had no opportunity to choose, no abusive or unusual childhood experiences which might account for it, etc. Perhaps there are some gay individuals who were influenced by childhood experiences, but certainly not all. One thing worth mentioning -- because it's a frequently-connected idea -- is that it's really irrelevant whether or not someone was born gay or "chose" it, from a moral standpoint. People have a right to have sex with other consenting adults, regardless of gender. There is no ethical basis for condemning it, so from a moral standpoint it makes no difference. It's still interesting from a scientific standpoint, of course.

Studies were made in which identical twins who were separated at birth and raised totally separately were compared and a very high percentage of them were either both gay or both straight. This proves conclusively that people can be born gay (or straight) although it doesn't prove it's impossible to become gay/straight later on in life. . It's also interesting to note that nobody claims to have chosen to become gay - not even devoutly religious people who ultimately choose to lead a celibate life rather than have same-sex relationships.

From what I have learned in the past few years, I would not deny genetic contribution to homosexuality. How much of a determining factor that is, however, is still under debate. The research that I have come across seems to show a correlation of both genetics (nature) and the environment they live in (nuture). Rcasha, I've seen twin studies where only 50% of identical twins and 20% of fraternal twins were both gay, so it's worth noting that not all research is identical or has consistent results. For many years I held a viewpoint that people were not born gay, however it was a belief I had taken on because that's what I was taught, and I had not learned to analyse that and make my own decision. I am learning now to analyse things before accepting them, and I have since come across information that challenges my old viewpoint. Seeing as it is classed as reputable and credible by scientists and universities, I believe it is more credible than my old beliefs. Hence my beliefs have changed. These days I wouldn't even say that you choose to become homosexual - regardless of nature or nurture, it seems to be a particular trait that we simply take on. Realistically, if you read accounts of gay people, they will say that they just knew it. I've read testimonies where people say they became aware of it at a certain age. I suppose if it was something you wanted to fight against, you could make that choice, but I have no experience there, and I don't think I have the credibility to make any comments. What you believe about homosexuality will depend on what you have been told is true, and what you have searched out yourself. Don't just take somebody's opinion on it, and if you do look up information from other sources, ensure that it is credible. To give a short answer to the question, however, I would say that my current take on the origin of homosexual tendencies is: What does it matter? Nature or nurture regardless, we are who we are. Let's just accept each other as we are and work together to make each others' lives better. Just my thoughts.

SHORT ANSWER: It is most often a complex combination of both. LONG ANSWER: Despite all the loud rhetoric on either extreme you will find the empirical truth in the middle: From the NARTH Collected Papers, 2004 Educating the Public on the Causes of Homosexuality Presented by Julie C. Harren, Palm Beach Atlantic University Abstract Education on the causes of homosexuality is greatly needed, as few people really understand the developmental nature of same-sex attractions. Many people believe the theory that homosexuality is solely biological, while many others mistakenly believe it is a choice. Typically, the biological explanation is preferred by homosexuals as this explanation helps to generate greater tolerance and also helps to build their case for minority status. Since education on the developmental contributors to homosexuality discredits the theory that it is completely inborn, some people are opposed to this type of education. Although education on the developmental contributors is not always viewed positively, it is very important that this information be shared. In this paper, less offensive, and therefore more effective ways of educating the public on the developmental contributors to homosexuality are described. Educating the Public on the Origins of Homosexuality In the recent presidential debates, a question came up regarding the nature of homosexuality. The moderator asked both candidates, "Do you think homosexuality is a choice?" President Bush answered that he didn't know, and Senator Kerry answered that he did not believe homosexuality is a choice, but that people are born that way. He referred to Vice President Cheney's daughter, saying that she, as a lesbian, is "being who she was, being who she was born as" (personal communication, October 14, 2004). I believe President Bush's and Senator Kerry's answers illustrate two aspects of a serious problem regarding the origins of homosexuality. The first part of the problem is that there is a great deal of confusion regarding the causes of homosexuality. There is a clear need for education on this issue. Many people simply do not know what causes homosexual inclinations. Many others have believed the erroneous theory that homosexuality is solely biological. Most people have not been informed about the developmental contributors to homosexuality. The second part of the problem evidenced in this presidential debate is illustrated in the moderator's question. He asked if they believe homosexuality is a choice, "choice" being the popular alternative to the biological explanation for homosexuality. The problem indicated here is that there seems to be only one alternative explanation for those who realize that the biological explanation is incomplete. In much of society there seems to be only two popular explanations: either people are born gay, or else it is a choice. Unfortunately, however, as NARTH members are aware, neither of the two widely held beliefs provides a comprehensive explanation for the origins of homosexuality. The research has never revealed that people are born gay. In fact, the research indicates that there are many factors, including possible biological and environmental factors, which contribute to a homosexual orientation (LeVay, 1996; Whitehead & Whitehead, 1999). While homosexuality is not simply biologically based, neither are homosexual attractions a conscious choice. Attractions and desires are like feelings; they come from deep within us and are not a conscious choice on our part. Furthermore, the idea that same sex attractions are a choice is extremely offensive and hurtful to those who have these desires. Promoting the perspective that it is a choice often perpetuates judgmental attitudes towards homosexuals. Although neither of the common explanations for homosexuality is accurate, the biological position is the one that is promoted by the gay community and secular society. This explanation, though incomplete and misleading, is extremely widespread. In the media and popular culture it seems to be assumed and implied that homosexuals are simply born that way. Flawed research studies are often cited as evidence for the biological basis of homosexuality. There are a number of possible explanations for the popularity of the biological argument. Certainly if there are only two options, that it is biological or that it is a choice, it is clear that the biological option would be the preferred option, especially in the age of political correctness, in which tolerance is often the goal. Anything that promotes greater tolerance is more widely accepted. The biological explanation is used to do just that. It is assumed that if homosexuality is strictly physiological, society will be more compassionate and tolerant for homosexuals. In addition, the biological explanation is used as a platform for homosexuals seeking minority status. Many homosexuals will not entertain the idea that it is not biologically based, because any other explanation is often perceived as a threat to their cause. Thus, we are left with the promotion and widespread acceptance of information that, while considered politically correct, is incomplete and misleading. Ironically, however, if people were taught that homosexuality is neither biological nor a choice, but a combination of both biological and environmental factors, the results of such education would include some of the advantages that homosexuals are seeking. When we educate on the environmental, developmental contributors to homosexuality, one of the outcomes is greater tolerance for homosexuals. Some of the results of education include: a deeper and more widespread societal understanding of their struggles, increased compassion for the hurts they have encountered, and decreased hostility. Hence, there are many advantages for society in general and for homosexuals in particular when expansive explanations are provided. Tolerance and respect are the result of education, even for those who do not approve or accept homosexuality as a moral lifestyle. Therefore, it is not only important to educate on this issue, but appropriate and beneficial to do so. Education on the developmental contributors to homosexuality does not have to be viewed negatively by homosexuals. As I have educated on this important topic I have found that education produces positive results for all people. Education on this issue includes information about environmental contributors to same-sex attractions. When I educate I begin by explaining the various developmental needs children have, needs for connection with the same-sex parent and same-sex peers. I explain that children are not simply born with a sense of their own gender but that their gender identity is formed through connections and interactions with others, primarily members of the same sex. I explain that children look first to their same-sex parent and then to same-sex peers to form their own identity: to understand how they measure up, how they fit in, what value they have as male or female, what it means to be male or female, etc. When children do not form healthy same-sex bonds and their needs for same-sex connection go unmet, these needs do not go away; they simply intensify or take on another form. Typically, near puberty, these unmet needs take on a sexual form, the emotional needs become sexualized (Satinover, 1996). These developmental factors, combined with genetic temperament, which impacts perceptions, all go into the development of homosexuality. Other factors such as sexual abuse or traumatic experiences may also contribute to the formation of same-sex attractions. Since this information is largely unknown to the general public, it is very important that we begin to share it in order to generate a more widespread understanding of this issue. I believe there are various ways of educating on this issue, some more effective than others. I believe that if we are going to be effective in our educational attempts we must do so in non-offensive ways, in ways that promote tolerance and are acceptable to all people, both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Although education on the origins of homosexuality has not always been well-received, I believe there is a way of doing so that can be non-offensive. As I have educated on this issue, I have found a way that seems to work well. I believe there are two keys to educating effectively: our motivation behind educating and our emphasis in educating. Our motivations for what we do greatly impact the outcome of what we do. Our motivations are often evident in the delivery of the information we are sharing. The motivation that seems to yield the most acceptable results is love. I have a brother who is gay, whom I love dearly, and with whom I have a wonderful relationship. When I educate the public on the causes of homosexuality, it is my love for my brother that motivates me. My love for him produces in me a desire to raise awareness about the origins of homosexuality. My goal in educating is to decrease hostility towards homosexuals (especially within conservative faith-groups) and to increase compassion. With that as my goal, I share the information in a way that is not only palatable to heterosexuals, but also acceptable to my homosexual brother, his partner, and their homosexual friends. On the other hand, if our motivation to speak on this topic is anger or outrage at homosexuals, I believe we lose some effectiveness. When anger motivates, the message we offer tends to contain a tone of hostility, which is not usually as palatable as a message given in love. When the information about homosexuality is presented in anger, the message often becomes lost in the delivery. An approach to education which conveys anger or intolerance will repel, rather than attract, listeners. I believe that education on this issue is absolutely imperative, but it must be done in a way in which people will listen, a way which draws people in rather than turns them away. In addition to having motives that help rather than hinder, our emphasis, that is, what we choose to emphasize or highlight, also makes a big difference in regards to our effectiveness. I believe that we must highlight the positive contributions of education on society, positive implications for both heterosexual and homosexual members of society. Educating on this issue can have a positive impact on homosexuals in that education offers a more complete understanding than either of the two inaccurate explanations which are currently promoted. When we educate, we are most effective if we emphasize the benefits of sharing the information, that is, a complete understanding of the issue yields more positive results for everyone than either of the two popular misconceptions. For example, in contrast with the false idea that homosexuality is a choice, understanding the developmental nature of same sex attractions yields a much more compassionate response towards homosexuals. When people who believe it is a choice are educated on this issue, they gain understanding, have greater levels of compassion, and become less judgmental. Tolerance is the outcome when people who believe it is a choice learn that it is instead developmental. All people, including homosexuals, should be treated with respect and dignity even by those who may not approve of their lifestyle. When I have educated on this issue to conservative faith groups, greater kindness to homosexuals is often the result. I continually receive feedback from seminar attendees regarding their new resolve to become more loving and kind to homosexuals. One person, who recently attended one of these seminars, doing so reluctantly, at his pastor's bidding, was so impacted that he stood up at the end of the seminar to share his newly gained insights. He said that he had a co-worker who was gay, and of whom he strongly disapproved. He explained that he regularly demonstrated his disapproval by treating his co-worker with contempt. However, upon attending our seminar, he expressed a new awareness of the need to simply love his co-worker and show kindness to him instead of contempt. When participants learn of the needs humans have for same sex connection and the results of those unmet needs, compassion is their response. Understanding the developmental nature of homosexuality is not only a better alternative to believing it is a choice, but it is also better in some ways than believing it is solely biological. Believing homosexuality is biologically based is actually quite limiting to homosexuals, and therefore has negative implications. For homosexuals who are not happy in the gay lifestyle, the biological explanation gives no hope for any other option. I have met countless homosexuals who were told by psychotherapists that their condition was unchangeable, despite the fact that they were very miserable and were seeking change. Believing that it is biologically based implies that change is impossible. In a society that highly esteems freedom of choice, it seems ironic that we accept and promote a theory of homosexuality that leaves the homosexual with no other options. Taking away all hope for change seems restrictive at best, detrimental at worst. On the other hand, when we educate we promote the truth that people can seek change if they so desire. The developmental understanding of homosexuality offers more options and increased hope. Of course, educating does not mean that homosexuals who are uninterested in changing should ever be coerced into trying to change against their will. Information about the developmental contributors to homosexuality must be shared. Our society has been saturated with misinformation. Yet educating must be done in a way that is effective, a way that promotes kindness and compassion. Educating effectively requires right motives and a right approach. I believe if we lovingly share information that has positive implications for all people it will be much better received. The need for education is great, but the way it is done will determine how effectively that need is met. As we educate, it is imperative that we consider our motives and our emphasis and that we seek to promote a greater understanding in the most effective way possible. References LeVay, S. (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press. Satinover, J. (1996). The gay gene? The Journal of Human Sexuality. Whitehead, N., & Whitehead, B. (1999). My genes made me do it. Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers. http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-harren.html

nobody is completely right. you're not going to get a straight answer. just decide for yourself what you think is right & don't ask strangers to make up your mind for you

I think it develops over time. Possibly before you reach the age of reason. Not that it matters, either way, one must decide to accept and embrace it, or to view it as a stronghold little different from gluttony, anger, sloth, greed, or any other attribute that brings unhappiness into your life.

My take on it: I'm not gay, so how the fuck would I know? Why should I care, for that matter? These are rhetorical questions. I don't know. I don't care.

Short and simple, I don't believe people are born gay, but I don't think it's any more of a "choice" than a foot fetish.

It's genetic. . http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/ . http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm . http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21309724/ . http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1925 . http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/7033.aspx

I don't think anyone is born gay. Seriously, born gay? I don't think so. They have experiences growing up that turn them that way over time is my guess. Genetics or whatever, I'll never understand it.

Nobody can really answer this unless they are gay. Non-gay people who try and answer it are simply imposing their prejudices - it didn't happen to them so it couldn't have happened to anybody. And most gay people I know were pretty clear that they were gay from when their sexuality first "turned on" at puberty. Until we have some concrete evidence to the contrary - and I have no idea what such evidence would be - to contradict the only informed source is perverse and bigoted.

its genetic ... its in ones genes so you are born that way

Look at it this way: Can you turn yourself from straight to gay? Even with enough practice, do you think you can truly love someone of the same gender as you instead of the opposite? Will you be able to overcome your desire for the opposite gender? I highly doubt it. Some people are born with the exact opposite desire. They love people of their own gender and can't just change or learn to love the opposite sex. It's not a choice, it's a predispositioned genetic trait. It seems a lot of people are ignorant to this fact until they apply it to themselves. The only thing wrong with same-sex relationships is that it won't produce offspring. Other than that, I don't see what the big fuss is about it.

The truth is it doesn't matter. Even if there is a gene which can be isolated, it will always remain possible for a person without such a gene to choose to engage in homosexual behavior for whatever social, emotional or environmental reasons might compel them. There's always been gay sex. And so long as humans retain their capacity for imagination, there always will be gay sex. Try to deal.

I think it matters not. I don't know if people are born gay, or become gay, but either way, it is not a choice, just like most of us do not 'choose' to be straight. If it was a choice, you could choose to be gay or straight whenever you wished, and we all know that does not work. Even if it was a choice that people made, it wouldn't make it any less valid. What consenting adults do in their home is their business.

People are born gay, its just one of the thousands of possible mistakes that could be present in your DNA, mistakes that happen more often than not. People that are born with green eyes have an error in their DNA, same with people with curly hair. Being gay is genetic.

I don't think we can pigeon hole behavior and orientations, as much as some would like, because it's a convenient conclusion that may support their position on the issue. There are many reasons and combinations of reasons for behavior, including biology, psychology and external experiences. You might be able to determine to some degree why a singular individual's orientation is what it is, but to try to categorize an entire group, of like orientation under one heading, is just not possible. Even if it were determined that the majority of people of any orientation have a specific cause or reason, it would be incorrect to say you know why people of that orientation are the way they are. We are far too complex a creature to be able to make things that easy. The scientific pursuit for understanding ourselves is good, but I think that the attempt to oversimplify cause, is based in a need to justify a preexisting position. We can no more categorize an entire groups sexual orientation, than we can another's color preference. I happen to like green, but I have friends that like red. Knowing why they like red isn't a priority.. we're still friends, regardless of our differing tastes.

if you are born gay... this does not mean that it is right. if a person has a genetic want to rape people or be an axe murder that does not say that it is right, that person must deal with those emotions and do what is right. . if a person becomes gay through nurture, say he sees that his mom always gets him away from his dad beating him and say I see what mom is like I wanna be like mom (ex.) that does not say that it is right to be gay it just says that that is the cause. we as men (or women) need to find what it is like to be a REAL MAN or REAL WOMAN (the biblical meaning) and become that. not that macho man that everyone thinks is a real man, but a man who is compassionate loving and caring who will stand for what is right and protect the innocent, and not the centerfold women that have more lipo and makeup than emotional warmth, they need to be upright and thoughtful, we all have a long way to go and men realizing that we have feelings doesn't mean we are like women and women just because you feel like an outcast and akward has nothing to do with wether you are a man or woman. we must embrace our differences and let that define us in helping out the next person. we all have problems genetic or raised, and it is that that makes us an overachiever when we tell "them" to be subjective to us, that we are not slaves to them.

I have not read up on those XY chromosomes or whatever lately so I guess I can't give a scientific answer, but I think it is more from life experiences. When I watch the discovery channel, I never see two adult males mating when there are females around. I don't really know how one can know how they were born. I am pretty sure that I did not even think about a female sexual partner nor a male sexual partner prior to school age. I know of a religion that teaches that it is okay to marry 9 year old girls and to have temporary wives. I suspect that perhaps some reason that they were born that way.

Frankly I have not seen ANY evidence that one is "Born Gay" Homosexuals will do, say and swear ANYTHING that makes them "Equal" to heterosexuals. They're just fooling themselves. Period.