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.
But the authors did not write a "scientific" paper. You keep insisting they did, because they referred to scientific studies. But their own article, and their conclusions, are what matter here -- and they are not scientific.
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.
.... read that again, very carefully, and see if you can realize what you just said.
They are not meaning that the attraction is an unalterable condition for a lifetime.
But they are acknowledging something that is directly counter to the conclusions they had just drawn from the scientific studies. Even if they had been "scientific" before this, they can no longer make that claim.
And to top it off, they quickly shifted from the uncomfortable discussion of "involuntary" attractions, to a discussion of "choosing to act" on those attractions.
It's not a scientific paper, FRiend. Stop trying to pretend that it is.