Sally, I think your reasoning is sound. I also think there is evidence that contradicts this “can’t change” mantra young people are being fed. I thought you might find this article enlightening. Another post at that site has a long list of links to related articles.

This from one of these articles, published in 2008:

[Richard Lippa, Professor of Psychology at Cal State Fullerton] is currently working with two biologists on DNA research to discover if there is a gay gene or one that can prove that there is a bisexual gene … [so clearly by as late as 2008 no DNA "proof" existed, though the idea that gays can't change was already well established]
A CNN report from 2007 quotes Dr. Douglas Abbott on Lippa’s claims:

There is no evidence of a “gay gene,” says Douglas Abbott, Ph.D., Professor of Child and Family Studies at the University of Nebraska.

Abbott points to studies that look at the sexual orientation of the offspring of gay people. “If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction,” he says. “But they aren’t more likely, so therefore it can’t be genetic.”

For Abbott, the answer to the nature-vs.-nurture question is very clear. “I think the primary causes of same-sex behavior are environmental and personal choice and free agency,” he says. “Can someone change their orientation? The definitive answer to that is, “yes.”

Or this:

March 6, 2008 – In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled “Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.”

This particular document was ostensibly published to provide definitive answers about homosexuality. However, few of the assertions made in the brochure could find any basis in psychological science. Clearly a document anchored more in activism than in empiricism, the brochure was simply a demonstration of how far APA had strayed from science, and how much it had capitulated to activism.

The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an update of the older one, is titled, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality.”

Though both brochures have strong activist overtones (both were created with “editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns”), the newer document is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.

Consider the following statement from the first document:

“There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”

Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to “prove” that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed.

I could go on and one, but you can find the articles yourself from that first link I passed on.

Becky
Rebecca LuElla Miller´s last [type] ..Tears Instead Of Jeers