It clearly states that there was no scientific evidence found for a genetic cause and only surmises at the possibility for a genetic influence. And even "if the previous hypothesis were correct", it is not the whole story on sexual orientation, as desire is a precursor/component to orientation. My point is that you are holding that bit of conjecture up as refute of everything else stated in that paper. So where in your description is something other than the sexual/affectional attraction that the Bearman study found to be socialized? Those who marry tend to reside at the furthest homosexual end of the orientation spectrum. Promiscuity has been found to be determined by gender, regardless of orientation. IOW, men of any orientation are more promiscuous, while women of any orientation are more monogamous. If homosexuality were a legitimate feminization, we would expect promiscuity/monogamy to follow suit. Like I said, marriage is just a stable indicator. And assuming anything other than orientation may be environmentally influenced is a special pleading for orientation. Again, you obviously do not understand the scientific method. Correlates have been found, but no causes have been proven. No it is not. It is trivial that all children of a distant or absent father will be closer to the mother. Nothing about that situation necessitates favoritism nor any smothering/overbearing behavior. Yes. It is trivially true that both you and the religious are less objective about your respective "issues". I never said anything about being able to "weigh in" on an issue, only that your vested interest predisposes you to make a priori assumptions. Gays do have a political agenda, but that is beside the point that all people most personally effected by an issue are the most biased. That you do not seem capable of admitting this simple and scientifically verified fact smacks of self-serving justification. I have not assumed it "must be environmentally caused or even chosen", only that the science has not ruled it out. Again, just following the science. Like I said earlier, you seem to laboring under a dualist approach where it must be one or the other, either biology or environment. I make no such a priori assumption. And? Even by the person's own choice, it is a conversion. Do you doubt that such chosen conversions do happen? So are you saying that you dismiss choice in seeking out therapy to overcome homosexual feelings? Would you ridicule, pity, or otherwise marginalize someone who did exercise their own choice? Would you insist they must have been bisexual, regardless of what they said they felt? No, again, evidence of biological correlates, not biological causes. These correlates strongly point to epigenetics, which have been shown fairly easily influenced by environment and behavior. Seriously? How can I agree when I do not find the fraternal birth order effect a compelling argument for a strictly biological cause? Unlike you, I have not decided, a priori, what the cause may end up being. With sufficient evidence of a clear biological mechanism, I am happy to concede it cause. And if that should happen, the "disparaging" of gays due to biological malfunction is simply a fact of epigenetics, not the doing of some homophobic hate-group. And the choice of whether to correct that malfunction will be the individual's (and perhaps the parent's). Since homosexuality serves no evolutionary imperative, it could persist due to social contagion. Not one I made, so the ignorance must be a strawman of your own invention. If you remember, you were talking about some ideal future. I simply said that all adolescents feel awkward, embarrassed, and unsure of their identity and place in the world. Even if orientation were not a factor. PTSD, etc.. Again, I would have to have intimate knowledge of your history. Everyone's history is unique, and even in the most seemingly equal environments, individuals will have different interactions and reactions. A strawman argument is when you invent a claim I never made, i.e. "exercise can change your sexual orientation". I was pointing out the general idea that epigenetics can be changed by behavior.