Your last paragraph deals with predispositions to activitivies, not the issue of attraction to certain types of sex.
It would be remarkable to find that there was any genetic predisposition to want to put a penis in an anus rather than a vagina.
Two guys loving each other is just two guys having love for one another. I can see any male having the ability to “fall in love”, meaning to develop a loving, nurturing relationship, with any other human being, whether they are male or female.
But “homosexuality” is simply about what parts you use to satisfy sexual urges.
Which is why heterosexual men have “gay sex” in prison — the gay rights activists aren’t stupid enough to suggest that most criminals are gay men, so they have to admit that “gay sex” has nothing to do with inate attractiveness to other humans.
And it is also why a man can be sexually attracted to another man if that other man simply puts on a wig and pretends to be female. If sexual attraction was built into genes and was hormonal, the male heterosexual would inately be able to tell that the person they were with was not of the sex they were attracted to.
But in fact, sexual attraction is largely about desiring sexual gratification, and years of training in what is supposed to be “sexually attractive”.
So if you grow up in a society where women hide their faces, you get aroused by seeing a face. Grow up nudist, and your arousal is built on some other factor. Grow up being told that other men are attractive, you will find other men attractive. If society teaches that heavy women are desirable, people will want to have sex with heavy women, if we say that thin girls are the thing, people go after thin girls.
We allow homosexual activists to steal the argument when they mix raw physical sexual urges with the concept of love and relationships.
Agreed, with one minor point of disagreement...
“If society teaches that heavy women are desirable, people will want to have sex with heavy women”
I don’t see that happening.
:)
INDEED.