Gay: News, Memes and Discussion
Welcome to /c/Gay - Your LGBTQ+ Haven
We're more than just a community; we're your haven for celebrating LGBTQ+ culture and connecting with like-minded individuals.
Our Partnered Discord Server: GayWave
Community Rules:
~ 1. No bigotry. Hating someone off of their race, culture, creed, sexuality, or identity is not remotely acceptable. Mistakes can happen but do your best to respect others.
~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person. This includes speculating about someones sexuality, no matter how "obvious" it may be.
~ 4. Keep it LGBTQ+ related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.
~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love posts but 3-4 in an hour is plenty enough.
~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.
~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon' and fuck over our artist friends.
view the rest of the comments
The current accepted model involves both genetic and early psycho-developmental factors. There are studies on identical twins that grew up in separate households and the co-inheritance is nowhere near 100%.
My point is, it should not matter whether you were born gay, or not. What matters is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the way you are.
"Their whole argument is we have to choose the way we are."
That is exactly my point. Let's not pretend their argument is in good faith or in any way truly relevant. Even if it were a choice, it would in absolutely no way detract from the point, there is nothing wrong with it.
I'd be interested in learning more about those studies
Here's one. Though I believe this is with twins, who lived together. 65% concordance for monozygotic twins, 30% in heterozygotic. Implying genetics is a significant factor, but not the only factor. (Monozygotic twins have identical DNA)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8494487/
Here's a more recent one:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11058483/
Where exactly was I upset? I did my best to explain my stance. And yes, my initial comment failed to put my thoughts across clearly and got rightfully downvoted as a result.
That is why I edited it and that is why I tried to explain my thoughts further.
I sincerely do not think the first comment goes against what I said here though. It was written poorly, but the sentiment and thoughts behind it are the same.