JacksonRev and Scorpion have it right.
The problem with the approach most people take to the question - "Is homosexuality environmental or genetic?" - is that it's monolithic. It assumes an either/or, it assumes that there's only one reason for homosexuality, and it ignores free will.
Parzival asked "If it's not inherent, then why would you do it in places it was banned?" I would respond with another question: why did Alan Turing risk his career, his social standing, and ultimately choose to end his own life, for a fling with a 16 year old boy, when he could have waited two more years and done things legally?
Is there really that much difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old? Heck, there are some pretty 16 year old girls out there, but even though that's legal in a lot of places, most straight men stay the hell away for the obvious reasons.
Certainly some men are born more obviously masculine than others, but I reject the use of the word "feminine" for the latter - I think that's toxic. The dandy (Oscar Wilde, for instance) is a recognizable male archetype. One of the priests at my old church was a bit of a dandy, and these days some might mistake that for a "gay vibe", but I never sensed anything like that. He was fun and flirtatious, used female-style gossip for masculine purposes, and reminded me of several straight friends I've had over the years. He wasn't feminine - he was just a different archetype of masculine.
The word effeminate - as pointed out by Ann Barnhardt - doesn't mean feminine. Both men and women can behave effeminately, and even "butch" guys can be effeminate backstabbing traitors. An effeminate man lacks honour; an effeminate woman lacks loyalty.
As for the paths to homosexuality - some do it out of convenience, some out of seeking an identity, some out of childhood-regression to pre-pubescent sensualism and "girls are icky", and many do it out of the choice of pursuing a fetish. It is explicitly self destructive for them; "Look at me behaving badly in public, shame me, shame me!"
I consider it less of a scientific question than a moral question.
The problem with the approach most people take to the question - "Is homosexuality environmental or genetic?" - is that it's monolithic. It assumes an either/or, it assumes that there's only one reason for homosexuality, and it ignores free will.
Parzival asked "If it's not inherent, then why would you do it in places it was banned?" I would respond with another question: why did Alan Turing risk his career, his social standing, and ultimately choose to end his own life, for a fling with a 16 year old boy, when he could have waited two more years and done things legally?
Is there really that much difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old? Heck, there are some pretty 16 year old girls out there, but even though that's legal in a lot of places, most straight men stay the hell away for the obvious reasons.
Certainly some men are born more obviously masculine than others, but I reject the use of the word "feminine" for the latter - I think that's toxic. The dandy (Oscar Wilde, for instance) is a recognizable male archetype. One of the priests at my old church was a bit of a dandy, and these days some might mistake that for a "gay vibe", but I never sensed anything like that. He was fun and flirtatious, used female-style gossip for masculine purposes, and reminded me of several straight friends I've had over the years. He wasn't feminine - he was just a different archetype of masculine.
The word effeminate - as pointed out by Ann Barnhardt - doesn't mean feminine. Both men and women can behave effeminately, and even "butch" guys can be effeminate backstabbing traitors. An effeminate man lacks honour; an effeminate woman lacks loyalty.
As for the paths to homosexuality - some do it out of convenience, some out of seeking an identity, some out of childhood-regression to pre-pubescent sensualism and "girls are icky", and many do it out of the choice of pursuing a fetish. It is explicitly self destructive for them; "Look at me behaving badly in public, shame me, shame me!"
I consider it less of a scientific question than a moral question.