DivineDarkness, while technically correct, you're still weaseling.
Once again, the ambiguities in the terms 'gay' and 'bi', their scope and their definitions allow for significant wiggle-room for exploitation to various agendas.
So let's return to a state of impartiality, and define exactly where arguments of 'choice' versus 'no choice' are appropriate:
The ONLY thing they can prove is chemical imbalances which only makes it HARDER...
Taken literally, this is correct.
...but it in no way forces it upon people
This is not. In fact, it is an unfalsifiable/unverifiable statement and is therefore useless. This is what I meant by 'weaseling'- you appear to be making an extension of a claim but it is actually an unsubstantiated bridge to your premises. You would do well not to insult the rigor of science in this manner.
---
I'll give everybody a minute to think about that.
---
Meanwhile, the battle between deciding just how much 'free will' we have and how much of our behavior is predetermined rages on. In general, we should not use the nebulous nature of this argument and its lack of standardisation to our own ends- after all, just to demonstrate, I could pose an extreme example such as being born to a fundamentalist religious community, be it the FLDS or an Islamic Sharia law state. You have 'free will' to exercise certain things but if you should happen to do something illegal, you will be stoned to death/have limbs amputated/tortured etc. So I'd say that's a pretty strong incentive not to exercise said 'free will'!
What we should be observing is the effects of our behaviors as a whole. To this end, to deny something in face of evidence, and also to deny something because your beliefs state that you must, is folly and subjects you to additional stress respectively. Some people will say that their sexual orientation, regardless of what it happens to be, is 'not a choice' because this is simply how they feel. I do not believe it is appropriate or anybody's right to tell them that they are not entitled to feel this way, for a start. Having considered the various criteria based on risks, health and social implications, I also do not believe it is appropriate or anybody's right to tell them that they are not entitled to most practices based on the way they feel, either.
Other people have a much more nebulous sexual orientation, and can go one way or the other. Many more still don't like to use the terms we currently use as they appear inadequate. Given we defined these terms ourselves, that in itself lends strength to the suggestion that they actually are. And that just happens to be a reminder that the platform of rejecting specific 'sexual orientations' on the grounds of religious/conservative sentiments is a
very narrow one. In short, the relevance of your claims to humankind is limited.
Bottom line- it varies. If you think this is insufficient I will come back with some background reading for you. And you would do well to read all of it before you reply again.
