Asserting something as fact doesn't qualify as an argument. Unless you can present empirical evidence or a well-reasoned argument in its favor, you're only avowing a belief. For homosexuality not to be a choice, it'd need to be an inborn trait, something that lacks scientific evidence and defies observed reality.
Actually, there is no such empirical evidence, and it's ironic that you say that in light of this topic. More importantly, the two parts of your statement are contradictory. An inborn trait is by definition rigid and immutable; as such, you can't claim that sexuality is inborn and agree it may not be entirely inborn. Regardless of that contradiction, you're rephrasing my original proposition. If we lack the evidence to support the born that way proposition, what high ground do those that claim that only homosexuals would come out as such in a society more tolerant of homosexuality compared to my proposition that perhaps a heterosexual is more likely to come out as homosexual in such a society?
Then homosexuality isn't an inborn trait if it can be biased by social norms and practices.
Actually they can, and they do. Isn't this what the liberal conception of sexuality as a fluid construct is all about? Many people start off as heterosexual, then they decide to "experiment". They either like the other team better and join accordingly, or they decide buggery isn't really for them and go back to base one. Sometimes, they decide to have the cake and eat it, and they become bisexual. These possibilities happen in different permutations and through different periods of time for different people. So yes, people can change their sexuality apparently, and some 50% of British youth profess to that.
