What if in the sentence above you replaced "have same-sex attractions" with "born male", and "gay" with "a man"?

No, whether or not you accept it, if you have same-sex attractions were born male you are gay a man.

Now it seems "intolerant" according to many on ATRL. So why can't people identify with the sexual orientation of their choice?

This sounds like a gay person who hasn't come to terms with the fact that they're gay yet

No one believes you.

This depends entirely on the loose definition of the term "gay" and the ideas surrounding that term and its use as an identifier. It's not fair nor valid to make sweeping conclusions with regard to this.

With regard to sexual orientation (and gender identity, but that's not entirely relevant to this thread) people are what they say they are, and we are in no place to question that. That's all.

I hold no regard or claim to these "straight" & "gay" labels in general. I will not willingly identify with either category.

This doesn't mean I am self-hating - I just genuinely believe, based on my personal experience, that sexuality is fluid & sits at a different level for each individual. It is then up to that person how far they wish to delve or explore their multiple states of sexuality.

In a way, I agree with this article. You are born with a specific innate nature - and the rest of your development & self actualization depends on your choices, your environment & the nurture concept.

I think these "studies" are pointless though. Just allow people to be themselves. There is no need for a "great explanation" as to why people are the way they are.

"My buns don't want none unless you got anaconda, hun" as a sig doesn't seem very "not."

Do they realize that sexuality is not just black or white?