Basically what you are saying is that only those who have no viewpoint at all about homosexuality can write anything that qualifies as “scientific”.
Since such a person does not exist, there can be nothing ever written about homosexuality that is “scientific”.
Not at all. What I am saying, is that if a person attempts to defend an article on the basis that it employs the "scientific method," then it is fair to test that assertion.
And if the assertion turns out to be false (as is the case for this article), then the claim that the article is somehow based on testable data, rather than being just another opinion piece, is also false.
In this case, the authors actually reject the scientific data they had previously cited, and then go on to change the entire basis of the discussion -- from one of "involuntary" actions, to a discussion of choices.
And they do so without announcing the shift.
All that can really be said about the argument set forth in this article, is that it just does not hold together.
I've showed you exactly where, and how the argument fails. It's a pretty glaring error -- caused either by a lack of objectivity caused by devotion to their opinions; or an outright prevarication. The former is more charitable, and more likely ... but the latter is possible, too.
You should be complaining to the authors of this piece of crap, rather than whining to me because I pointed out their errors.