It’s never a good sign when you start you argument by completely changing the subject.

Try doing that in a scientific paper.

““Causes” homosexuality is politically loaded terminology. Some people read in a judgment of homosexuality. Not being judgmental about it, but still trying to understand how it arises, I am willing to use the word “cause”.”

You’re right, my use of “cause” was a poor choice.

“There is some evidence of a correlation of brain structure to homosexual orientation. However, I don’t know of any definitive conclusion of cause.”

That’s what I thought. Though the original article seems to state this as fact.

“However, there is no evidence even suggesting of a bacterial or viral cause. There is no identifiable brain damage or identifiable chemical imbalance.”

I’m assuming you mean “There is not YET evidence even suggesting….” Unless you know of some medical research that actually states this as fact. If so please provide some links or references for us.

“There is probably a neurochemical connection, of only because that is the root of all brain activity, but the complexity of that may be as complex as, say, political party choice. And frankly, sexual orientation may even be a mixed trait, some of it biochemically determined and some of it chosen. Of course that is another political minefield, becuase of the arguments over the acceptability of homosexuality.”

Agreed.