I am not quibbling anything. I am asking you a simple and direct question. Why do you have such a hard time simply defining sexual orientation? Again, neither you nor Bearman have defined in what way, if any, sexual orientation differs from its sexual and affectional components that do show to have social causal factors. Repeatedly relying in that small excerpt is cherry-picking. If you had the intellectual honesty to look further than simply confirming your bias, you would find (in the actual study supposedly cited by that quote you hold so dear): In this article, we show that adolescent males who are opposite-sex twins are twice as likely as expected to report same-sex attraction; and that the pattern of concordance (similarity across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe—the presence of an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadoles- cence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences. ... Oddly, despite the popularity of the idea, the evidence for genetic and/orhormonal effects on same-sex orientation is inconclusive at best. The most publicized genetic findings, for example, the discovery of a marker for homosexuality in men (Hamer et al. 1993) has not been replicated, and studies purporting to establish a genetic or hormonal foundation to human sexual orientation tend to have serious methodological flaws (Stein 1999; Byne 1995; McGuire 1995). ... ...social scientists and geneticists alike stress the obvious point that neither genes, nor hormones, nor specific social situations determine sexual behavior by themselves. Rather, the extent to which same-sex and opposite-sex desires are expressed in the individual is seen to be a complex interplay of bio- logical, social, and situational factors (McGuire 1995; Parker and de Cecco 1995; Risman and Schwartz 1988). - http://www.soc.duke.edu/~jmoody77/205a/ecp/bearman_bruckner_ajs.pdf So again, how do you define sexual orientation? You know, since you are the one making some sort of specific distinction here. And since that quote you love repeating seems to be erroneously attributed to Bearman's paper, your cherry-picking appeal to authority falls on its face. Hell, that same paper you keep quoting that supposed attribution to Bearman is the exact same paper cited as contrary evidence to the fraternal birth order effect. So it is abundantly clear that you are simply do a tap-dancing evasion. You are evasive about simply defining sexual orientation, much like you have accused theists of evading defining their god. That is clear and biased hypocrisy. No, the only pseudoscience is the false attribution on the wiki page you keep quoting. Everything I have been quoting is supported by the actual paper, while it seems some wiki contributor sought to marginalize the actual results of that paper. Perhaps a friend of yours. The bolded is are biased lies. I have already shown that the wiki attribution is Bearman's "suggestion" is false, that the Danish same-sex marriages would, if anything, isolate the most ardent homosexuals (which would be a significant study control). And the scientific evidence you tout are correlates, not causes. Causes require isolating actual mechanisms. I only admit that there could be biological factors, but that they have not been proven. You act as if they have been proven, no doubt due to being personally vested in the outcome. Were has it been supposed that any child was the mother's favorite?! As far as I can see, they only correlated absent/distant father to trivially being closer to the mother. Nowhere did it compare "favorites" among any number of children. I already told you your article does not address the issue studied, but no doubt you will continue to throw biased irrelevancies at me. You just keep making demonstrably false correlations of your own. Typical activist name-calling in an attempt to demonize any opposition. I have not made any correlation between being gay and reasoning skills. I simply accept the well-proven bias of people who have a vested, personal interest in a subject. This is indicated by phrases such as "from firsthand experience" (the same argument religious people give). I do not have a horse in this race. I have had gay and lesbian friends and have even been "hit on" by gays without overreacting in the least. I simply follow the science, without bias or agenda. False dilemma, as not all ex-gays are a result of "reparative therapies". Just as there are those who seek out a gender change, there are those who do not feel they had a choice in their sexual orientation and wish to instead seek out a cognitive change. Many ex-gays seek out regular therapy to address their unwanted feelings, just as many other people do for a variety of unwanted feelings. It is sad that ex-gays are either brutalized by zealot "therapies" or harassed by homosexuals (more than they were, as openly gay, by "homophobes"). So your focus on "reparative therapies" is a red herring, at best. All current biological evidence points decidedly toward epigenetics, and you only weaken your own argument to assert otherwise. Try following the actual science instead of your feelings. Genius? Evolution has good reason to select for intelligence. Just because something is more rare does not make it "biology run amok". We also know that being a genius, a twin, or a little person is definitely genetic, so why would we disparage any of those. Another false dilemma, comparing the empirically verified against what is still scientifically questionable. And more ad hominem epithets. Science does not care about your feelings, only about facts that can be empirically verified. The scientist (or anyone else) simply questioning what has not yet been proven is not homophobic. Adolescents, of any orientation, have and will always find reason to feel awkward, embarrassed, and unsure of their identity and place in the world. That has nothing to do with society making them feel shame. Your self-serving optimism aside, freedom of choice (which you claim you do not have as a gay) is something people have always strove to achieve. I said trauma, not brain trauma. You know, the sort of trauma that is well-documented for causing a wide variety of behavioral disorders. I do not know your personal history intimately. It is trivially true that the social environments for any two people are never identical in every respect. Strawman arguments in an appeal to ridicule only illustrate the weakness of your position. Again, all you have are correlates, unproven as causes.