Alright, well I guess I'll stay on topic instead of derailing it with an examination of the Bible's mistransliterations, which I earlier alluded. I will send it to a mod first, for determination of acceptability. Okay, so... in answer to the OP, it is not a choice. Preference is subjective and subject to societal pressures, but it is clearly not a choice ---
There are physiological/biological (DNA) differentiations that result in differing results and influence by, and of, prenatal hormonal secretions. Since 1973, the bulk of the study has been performed by psychologists, because in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association, along with professionals in medicine, mental health, behavioral and social sciences, conclusively determined that homosexuality is not a disorder, nor abnormal. As psychiatrists focus on the treatment (usually through imposition of medication) of disorders, this decision by the APA effectively ended any further psychiatry-based pathology studies.
However, psychologists study all aspects of human behavior, not merely the treatment of disorders. In the decades since 1973, the American Psychological Association determined that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and posiive variations of human sexuality. I.e., the standing, 40-year consensus in the professional fields are that homosexuality is a, "normal variation of human sexual orientation." [1]
In respects to same-sex marriage, the American Psychological Association, in a brief to the Supreme Court, concluded, "there is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage." [2]
Further, earlier studies were made by the U.S. military as far back as World War II, with the oldest recorded study affirming what has been consistently presented in their reports, consistent with present findings, which is that, "the homosexual leads a useful productive life, conforming with all dictates of the community, except its sexual requirements" and was "neither a burden nor a detriment to society." Fry and Rostow reported that, based on evidence in service records, homosexuals were no better or worse than other soldiers and that many "performed well in various military jobs" [3]
In all the valid studies, it was determined that homosexual and heterosexual early histories ("nurture") do not differ substantially as to warrant conclusive external causations. Early studies determined prenatal hormones to be a major factor in determining sexuality (and transgender status), but a DNA study back in 2003 found 54 genes associated with the expression of sex, indicating that while hormones are a factor, they are not the only "nature" determinate. Additional studies have since provided ample evidence that DNA and prenatal hormones play a markedly significant factor in determining sexual orientation. [4] [5]
Basically what this means is, qouting Dr. Bogaert of Brock University, "the environment a person is raised in really makes not much difference." [6]
So then, what about reparative therapy? Is it valid, does it pose conflict with the scientific assertions? Well first we need to clarify that reparative therapy is the effort by some to impose therapy to change a person's sexuality. The APA is rather firm on this issue, which is that it is unethical because there is no supporting evidence of it being effective and there is evidence indicating it is potentially harmful. [7]
Reparative therapy groups, such as NARTH, are not advocated by APA and are, in fact, condemned by the greater majority of professional psychologists. Unfortunately, obtaining a degree in psychology is not necessarily a challenging endeavor and, for the most part, psychology is a field of interpretations as opposed to tried & true applications. This tends to lead to people with preconceived notions (religious or otherwise) baying overlay on their cognitive interpretation of issues and challenges. As a result, these sorts of groups exist because enough like-minded homophobes, with degrees in psychology, can and do decide to ignore the American Psychiatric Association's findings, the American Psychological Association's findings, and the emerging biological findings that pose in contra to their not-so-hidden agenda. As one activist, Wayne Besen, puts it, "(Reparative therapy) is a kinder, gentler form of homophobia." [8]
Finally, let's address the argument that homosexuality is against nature. Easily answered --- this is patently false --- as there are well over 1500 animal species that have been documented to display homosexual behaviors/activity. [9]
[1]
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
[2]
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/...er_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
[3] Allan Bérubé,
Coming Out Under Fire, 1990, pp. 170-171
[4] Friedman RC, Downey JI. Homosexuality. N Engl J Med.1994; 331 :923 –930
<Free Full Text>
[5] Stronski Huwiler SM, Remafedi G. Adolescent homosexuality. Adv Pediatr.1998; 45 :107 –144
<Medline>
[6] Bogaert, A.F. (2006). Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and sexual orientation in men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 103, 10771-10774.
<USA Today article>
[7]
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html
[8]
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/reptherapy.pdf
[9]
http://www.nhm.uio.no/besokende/skiftende-utstillinger/againstnature/index-eng.html
