No, it's a common rhetorical technique when two people disagree. You start at a point of obvious agreement, then work toward the point of disagreement and demonstrate a commonality. I was trying to establish that a genetic influence for a behavior is not a compelling reason to allow or encourage that behavior - a point with which you have agreed. Therefore, you can stop with your twin studies and get on with the issue of homoerotic behavior.
You better hope that mentality never takes hold politically. There may come a day when those in power (can you say President Hillary Clinton) decide your particular opinion or behavior should be "discouraged if not outright outlawed."
Actually, there is no other political mentality. All political decisions are based on a concept of morality. And today I find there are lots of laws being proposed that would make it illegal for me to believe homoerotic behavior is immoral. So it's only a matter of whose viewpoint comes out on top.
If there is such a thing as a moral law (which I believe there is) then the important thing is to determine whether homoerotic behavior is against that moral law, no matter what people think. If there is no such thing as a moral law, then those who believe homoerotic behavior is destructive have just as much a right to pursuade our opinion in the political arena as anyone else.
Shalom.
Neither is it a valid reason for the government to assume the power to criminalize that behavior when it harms no one (except maybe the one engaging in it), when doing so is a blatant violation of their basic human rights (with the necessary disclaimer that we're talking about consenting adults in the privacy of their own home).
We don't live in a nation where rights are granted by government approval and all activities outside that which is government approved is criminal.