Looking at other prefferences that have no reaction, to your attraction is a great way of looking at this matter. 

What if people got up tight because you liked the color yellow, chocolate ice cream, or living in the country?

Now what if your tastes change, and you start to like the color blue, strawberry ice cream, and living in the city? But you had different tastes before and now you have changed, how can people trust you?

Does this not sound stupid? Yet this is how we look at sexual attraction. People mentaly, and physically are not stationary. We are always growing and changing, and so are our tastes, desires, and attractions. Even staying within one attrction we will find our minds changing. Have you not been attrcted to blonde women, at one point, and brown haired women at another point?  Just like the ice cream example above, sometimes you like chocolate, sometimes vanilla, sometimes you don't want ice cream at all.

Sex is no different than any other activity we do. What would be more interesting to me is why some people have such deep opinions about the matter. 

No, I'm really not, I look at homosexuality as a random mutation which occurs either in pregnancy or during DNA replication, leading to a chemical imbalance, or a mutation among genes. I look at it as a disorder, not just a "preference" because in truth people are born gay. Homosexuals cannot become Heterosexuals and vice versa, no matter how much experimentation people perform. This is the leading theory for homosexuality, it's not my opinion, it's just what is believed to be the mechanism.

Do you know any homosexuals who were married? You might be right, the straight partner might judge the homosexual partner, but I know 1 homosexual who was married and has a daughter, and he said sex was hell.

Who you love isn't a choice, but if you simply have a preference towards people of the same gender, then there still must be some people of the opposite gender you find attractive. For many fully gay individuals this is not the case.

Youre arguement is 100% true for bisexuals, but I'm talking about individuals who have zero interest in the opposite gender. I am talking about homosexuals. If it really is a matter of preference, how come most people have no desires to mate with people of the same gender, and how come many homosexuals have no desire to mate with people of the opposite gender?

How come people are born homosexual? Why don't people turn homosexual after a period of time? Speak to any gay person and they will tell you that they knew they were gay from puberty.

Anyway, I made this thread to hear peoples opinions. I am really surprised to see so many people believe it's a matter of preference.

Maybe it's just the way I grew up, going and getting a field in the true sciences, looking at everything from the scientific point of view instead of social point of view, but I still see no reason to disagree with the majority of scientists.

I hope one day that advances in research does find a cure for homosexuality. So that those born with the disorder/preference will now have the option to become heterosexual.

That said I have nothing against homosexual individuals. It's not their fault they are born the way they are, but I still view the condition as a disorder since it's not heritable and disobeys all the facts we know about evolution. It's a random mutation which hurts the fitness of a species, and for that reason we should look for a cure. People shouldn't be forced to take the cure, if we ever find one, but they should have the option.

Just like people who are born with Albinoism or those who develop eretile disfunction. They might be mild conditions, but hey if they want to go out in the sun or satisfy their wives, I want to help them. This is no different from homosexuals who want to engage in heterosexual relationships.

Never mind the fact that those are random surveys , never mind the fact that they come from different times, never mind that having homosexual experience doesn't mean you are homosexual. These studies don't support what you are suggesting.

You are pushing too hard for "it's not genetic" and you are doing it the wrong way.

I'm guessing you missed my recent thread on the matter: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=152624&page=1

I am well aware that people don't choose what to be sexually attracted to, which is why I didn't refer to it as "opinion". People don't choose their preferences in some instances, including the matter of your favorite color and which sexes you find sexually attractive. I'm pretty sure you agree with me on all this: You can't force yourself to be sexually attracted to males (assuming you are straight) just like you can't force yourself to change your favorite color.

As for your desire to "cure" homosexuality, may I ask: Why? The world is already overpopulated as it is, and I don't see homosexuals harming others more than heterosexual people does. Heck, they even offer a great opportunity to raise orphan kids. I really can't think of one single reason why we should cure this "defect". If you are referring to those who are homosexual but want to be heterosexual, I guess I can kind of understand your reasoning. Because solving that puzzle would benefit everyone, including straight people who would want to be gay.

So, again: Why?

No, the research (twin studies) demonstrates quite clearly that it is not (predominantly) a genetic trait ...

What I was trying to demonstrate is that the proportion of people who identify as being "homosexual" or "bisexual" varies quite a bit across different cultures. I initially went looking for a study I saw earlier this year that demonstrated vast differences between the percentage of gay men in different ethnic groups across the United States but I couldn't find it; and, from what I remember, on a percentage basis the study demonstrated that homosexuality was more common among black males than white males even though the black community was far less supportive of homosexuality.

First of all, I didn't quote your first post in this thread but that's fine, let's give it a go:

You are understanding of the whole thing is wrong, you can't say genes don't play a role even if more than 50% of the MZ twins aren't both gay. There are diseases (or traits) that are classified as single gene diseases (or traits) and there are others that are classified as multifactorial diseases (or traits).

To explain further, the inheritance of a Single abnormal gene alone guarantees the appearance of the disease in single genetic diseases. An Example of this is sickle cell disease. A wrong example of this would be homosexuality, because it clearly it isn't a single gene trait.

Multifactorial diseases, however, require the abnormal gene + environmental factor + lifestyle and a plethora of other precipitating factors = then you may get the disease. Examples of these are asthma, multiple sclerosis, vitiligo, depression, hypertension and other autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis etc. An example of a multifactorial trait is height or how tall someone is.

So when it the studies say that 20% of homosexuality is due to environmental and 60% due to "unique" environmental, it actually DOESN'T exclude the genetic role for any of them. It only excludes the possibility of homosexuality being due to ONLY and ONLY a genetic cause. Clearly it isn't. So these studies support what's already accepted by scientists and physicians that homosexuality is multifactorial.

Let's take asthma for an example, MZ twins concordance rate is around 40% (not sure what's the exact number but it's in the 40s), does that mean the 60% don't have the asthma gene? NO IT DOESN'T, since MZ twins share 100% of the genes. So it only means that the asthma gene alone doesn't guarantee the occurrence of the diseases, why? Because precipitating factors may not be strong enough to cause asthma, but what happens when the patient does get asthma? Do we switch the blame entirely to the environmental (or precipitating) factors and exclude the gene that predisposed the wholes mess in the first place? No, we don't, we simply say asthma is multifactorial. Same principles can be applied for homosexuality.

Now with that introduction in mind let's go back to the studies you linked, these types of studies were criticized a lot, SOME of the valid criticism was mentioned in the wikipedia page you linked, but I'll try to add some of the points that I remember and aren't mentioned in wikipedia:

First of all, if we assumed that homosexuality is multifactorial then we have to know the other factors besides gene that may cause someone to be homosexual, for example in asthma patients, the precipitating factors are identified, from fumes to dusts and pollens, in diabetic patients, it's diets with high carbohydrates and lack of physical activities (other stuff weird stuff like skin conditions!!!) so those precipitating factors were mentored throughout the studies.

But what about the precipitating factors of homosexuality? What are they? Orange juice? Nudity? Music? We can’t tell and we can’t assume that both siblings had the same precipitating factors even if they are twins. For example, if hormonal levels during puberty turned out to be a precipitating factor then the retrospective twin studies would be rendered moot, since hormonal levels weren’t mentored.

Second of all, HOMOSEXUALITY ISN'T BLACK AND WHITE. These studies DON'T use kinsey scale or any similar scale in identifying how homosexual a person is and how heterosexual the other sibling is. Therefore, the results are not always applicable. 

Third point I want to mention and this one is specific to the studies you posted, some of the studies has environmental and unique environmental factors , and under “unique environmental” factors they included a collection of factors that included almost all factors from non-biologic to biologic prenatal factors under one big umbrella… which is… awkward. Because usually it's environmental vs biological (genetic is a biological factor) or environmental vs genetic. "Unique" environmental in this case included all the biological factors vs genetics and that skwed the %

Finally, there are recent studies out there that clearly states that calcium intake before the age of 30 doesn't prevent osteoporosis but physicians still advise women to drink milk and whatnot. Why? It’s because these studies aren't large enough and they weren't carried out on a "large enough" scale. Same goes for most the studies out there, scientists and physicians will continue to believe that homosexuality is multifactorial as long as there are no available studies with much less bias. The ones you mentioned by the way support the multifactorial theory more than anything really (as explained above). The size of the Published studies doesn’t reflect their importance.

Now for the other stats you posted later, I already pointed out how inaccurate they are, but I wouldn't be surprised in the future if race and ethnicity turn out to be precipitating factors for homosexuality. DM for example has "race" under the list of precipitating factors. 

Purely environmental or not, that’s the pointless question. So far it's obvious that homosexuality is multifactorial, I don't see that changing, but who knows, maybe at some point it turns out to be purely environmental. The important point is that I still think the amount of resources we are wasting on something like this is stupid, let's move on from these pointless discussions and try to think of ways to help homosexuals in oppressed countries to get their basic rights and keep the focus of our medical resources on important stuff, like actual diseases that actually affect people's life quality. 

Gays have broken the chains that women use to hold back men, which is why you see so many gays in successful positions. Lesbians were made for pornography.

All part of God's great plan

(your daily dose of tongue-in-cheek misogyny)

I agree with you here lol!

Also you have to look at native populations, and social norms. In a city like Toronto or San Fransico, where there is an excessive population of homosexuals (Toronto is 3% gay, the largest population in North America), homosexuals from other regions will immigrate to Toronto because it accepts homosexuality. Also since regions like these are pro-gay, more people will be open, or willing to come out of the closet.

Plus like you said, a homosexual experience doesn't not constitute being a homosexual, and different age demographics, and different times.

I agree with your other thread, I read the OP, 100% agree.

I however disagree with you on the relationship between the preference to be homosexual, to the preference of colour. My favorite colour used to be blue, and now it's green. Sexual preference doesn't change like that.

As for my wish to cure homosexuality, why not? It's a disorder is it not? Many people will argue it's natural, but rape is natural, does that mean it's good (extreme example here). Erectile disfunction is normal, but like you said we have enough people as it is, why bother curing it?

I think people should have a choice. Many homosexuals wish to be heterosexual, but have issues. If people have a disorder, any disorder, harmful or not, they should have the freedom to cure themselves. If you were born with a deformed femur, and had a limp, would you not want to cure it? Sure you could live with it, but why?

Lol, you already acepted my response. For homosexuals who wish to remain homosexual, I am not insisting that we forcfully cure these people. It's a defect, but hey I bet you that some black people who are born white because of Albinoism, like it that way. This is no different.