Whether you agree to disagree or not is now beside the point. Stubbornly clinging to your insistence that an organization that is opposed to the affirmation of homosexuality should not be trusted to write about it, either as science or as essay, is your position. It is an untenable position, since think tanks of all types routinely write and cite in favor of their positions, some with more credibility than others; you are rejecting FRC’s very right to do so in spite of their use of footnotes and citations.
I will never agree with your position, so the time has come for you to stop criticizing microscopic aspects of their essay or my responses. Your actual motivation appears to be to affirm homosexual behavior as an immutable condition, which is a position that true conservatives and certainly FR’s owner roundly reject, because the behaviors associated with homosexual identification are objectively toxic for society and for individuals.
Just as heterosexuals feel many types of attractions outside of marriage, the task of choosing what type of sexual behaviors are life-affirming falls on them as well, not just those with homosexual attraction disorder.
It's not scientific, no matter how much you want it to be.
What you're left with is an opinion piece whose conclusion is drawn from a serious logical error on the part of the authors. They actually rejected the only hard data they presented.
It's no longer a question of whether or not homosexuality is wrong, or a civil right, or whatever.
The question now is, can you really trust a couple of guys who made such a glaring error in pursuit of their point?