Re "innate"
You are mixing hard science with developmental psychology.
Many gays have strong mothers and absent fathers...or decide they are "Gay" because they feel like outsiders and then are seduced into a gay lifestyle.
Sexuality is malleable, and if a culture starts a boy having sex with men, he may be bisexual. If he longs for a father figure, and then is seduced into a warm, loving gay relationship because he is lonely, he will be gay. And if a child starts taking alcohol and marijuana at age 11, with peer pressure saying getting high is good, the rate of addiction is much higher than if he merely puffed a joint in college...
But there is also in born tendencies...
In all populations, one percent of men are gay...many quite effeminite. Many cultures have ways for them to stay integrated into society without letting them be considered "normal"...here in the PHilippines, gay men as hairdressers etc are ridiculed, but not ostracized, since they are free in these professions...but bisexual men are usually married...and this group is discouraged from acting on their impulses...they have a choice...
Because gays assume this second group is "Gay" they condemn those trying to cure the first group...and because Evangelicals assume the first group have a choice, they condemn those who are fully gay...
Unless you separate those who have no choice, and those who have both impulses, but are free to choose heterosexuality, you will keep getting arguments....
Theoretically, a man who is merely tempted but able to stay pure because he is the second group will be a good priest...but a man who says he is "gay" has already made the decision to follow a gay lifestyle...and should be eliminated from the priesthood...
Alas, many gays who don't want to be gay pray a lot and join monasteries or the priesthood to cope with their temptations...similarly, they marry a woman not out of love but to be "cured"....in both cases, the decisions are made from fear, not love...
"In all populations, one percent of men are gay...many quite effeminite."
Ah, but some men who are quite effiminate never become benny boys.
Further, with today's increased access of disordered men to the young, the rate of SSAD is growing. Camille Paglia said a person would have to be blind not to see that. And it is growing the fastest where access is the greatest.
I was talking to a man once who told me that in in his younger, single days, when looking for girls (not children) to seduce, he always sought out those who had a bad relationship with their fathers, or who had no fathers, because the rate of success was much higher.
During my own horny years I was not clever enough to do that, but thinking back on my infrequent successes, I also see that trend.
I think that's the reason that boys with absent fathers or who are effeminate develop SSAD wiht greater frequency. They are more attractive targets for predators.
As for "bisexuality," like any other mental disorder, SSAD can manifest with greater or lesser severity, and can become more severe or less with time. A "bisexual" man is merely a man with a less severe case, one that does not prevent him from functioning with a women.
You hear about married men who have the occasional compulsion -- and compulsion is the correct term, in its clinical sense -- to engage in perverted behavior with men. However, you never hear of a man who has identified himself as fully homosexual who has the occasional compulsion -- in the same sense of the word -- to have sex with women.
You haven't identified the source of the opinions you are presenting there, as I earlier pointed out. And, as I did earlier also, I assume your opinions are those taught to you, socially, and acquired by you, liberally from and among other opinion-based "academics."
I respect your opinions - I realize many from the socially indoctrinated group of acquired opinion-as-knowledge don't respect mine but it's not important an issue to me here or otherwise - but the opinions you continue with are just those: opinions you have acquired from non-specified and non-proven suggestions, meaning they are entirely subjective conjectures.
For instance, you opine: "sexuality is malleable (sic)" and yet no, no it is not. You carry forward with that conjecture -- very significant in implications -- as if it was proven (it is not) and don't define or explain where that opinion of yours originates, or even explain that point further.
The rest...again...all that you've written there is mere opinion, entirely subjective, a tad like reading a novel, in no disrespect to you as an individual, but unless you take an objective approach to these important issues, you and others who carry on with them continue to proliferate and encourage opinions as "truth" when they are not and are no more than opinion.
Which is why I earlier pointed out that unless a hypothesis (which is opinion, conjecture, imagined premise) is substantiated by a specific process of evidence and proof, it's remains mere suggestion only.
Which is where our popular culture is about these sliding scale, variable possibilities and hunches about homosexuality and other sexual behaviors...and of worse unfortunatily, those imaginings have been allowed to be 'taught' and instructed in public educational systems as 'fact' when they are anything but fact but mere popular opinion, without evidence otherwise, other than those making the most noise about certain opinions manage to be heard.
Homosexuality is behavioral. It has never been proven to be "inherent" and that's the actual fact within science (and my religious beliefs) as of this date.