But that's exactly the problem -- they did not actually use the scientific method to arrive at their conclusion.
They cited various studies about the origins of homosexuality, and we can assume that those peer-reviewed results were in fact in accordance with the scientific method.
HOWEVER.... the authors then go on to state that the underlying homosexual attraction is "involuntary" (their word). So much for the studies they had just cited. The failure of studies to determine the exact origins of the attraction does not affect the authors' explicit acknowledgement that homosexuality does in fact begin with an involuntary attraction.
(Indeed, they appear to have essentially conceded the underlying argument made by homosexual activists, that they can't help how they are.)
And then, departing from science, they claim that it's not the involuntary attraction that's important, but rather the choice to act on it.
And beyond that, they shift the discussion to one of being "held responsible for" the choice to act on the involuntary attraction.
By this point the authors have left the realm of science very far behind.
Yet you object to the publishing of a review of the negative outcomes of homosexual behavior and a discussion of the ways in which it truly cannot be called a "civil right",
No, what I specifically objected to, was your false claim that this article is somehow "scientific." It is not.
We will have to agree to disagree. The FRC paper was footnoted to actual studies and was a review of actual studies. You have only to read the nonsense written by the gay judge in California in legalizing gay marriage - again - to see a lot of personal opinion posing as fact. No footnotes, no citations, not even a valid legal argument — just personal opinion.
As for the matter of “involuntary”, the authors were talking about the individual’s perception while he or she is in the untreated stage of the disorder. They are not meaning that the attraction is an unalterable condition for a lifetime.