Quote:My answer for the third time.. not more gay births. But I cannot say men adapting to their surroundings either. It's not deliberately trying to be evasive. I don't accept the either/or premise of the question. I explained this by showing public perception of homosexuality at that time was not taboo. If you don't accept that, I'm sorry.


People are born straight for a biological reason. You are correct. To procreate. But all animals (including humans) also have a small subset which is bisexual or exclusively homosexual. Can this not also be considered natural if it occurs so frequently across all manner of species? If not, why not? How do you explain it?


As for your last point. You may be right. I don't know that it is a rigid born this way or not. I see significantly more information supporting the idea in most, if not all cases it is a "born this way" proposition. But I have also considered some other possible explanations. Some propose we are all born with gender fluidity and certain variables determine how we self identify. These theories are less consclusive, but I can at least acknowledge them. All the while not ignoring the evidence I see to support a biological explanation.

It was actually me who brought up the point that homosexuality was not taboo back then.Which would be an environmental factor.


It can be natural without being biologically born with it. There is a big difference between the two. For instance in certain types of Albatross female and female relationships form and can produce one egg a season which they look after together as its apparently a full time job looking after a small chick. This only happens among the birds when there is a direct shortage of males. This is homosexuality due to an environmental factor,they are not born as gay birds. That's an example of animals responding to environment.


And most information I have seen seems to suggest a mixture of nature and nurture ,which makes more sense to me.

---