[ElkGroveDan]

If an individual possesses condition X, that does qualify him to make conclusive assertions about the cause of condition X

Actually that's a really stupid assertion the more I think about it. based on your reasoning doctors should not attempt to diagnose patients by asking them what they ate, where they've been, what their symptoms have been or ask them, "What do YOU think caused this condition?"

More often than not patient testimony is the most accurate path to diagnosis and treatment of a condition. And in cases where the doctors have disqualifed themselves from scientific objectivity, as the mental health profession has done in this case, then patient testimony may be all we can rely on.

[BCrago66]

I'll ignore the "studid" remark, because I don't want a flame war. Besides, I might have started it by using the term "scientific illiteracy."

If you look at my statement and yours, you wil see that they are not actually incompatible: note the difference between conclusively establishing X and providing evidence for X. And even if testimony could - and it cannot - establish the cause of homosexuality for a given individual, that testimony would not apply to another homosexual.

In response to somebody else, there are hardly any conditions that are %100 genetic. Almost all are a caused by combination of genetic and environmental or behavioral factors, e.g., a genetic predispostion for diabetes plus obesity may cause diabetes in an individual.
While this is not something I study, I'd be suprised to find any credible person claiming that a complex condition like homosexuality is %100 genetic.