But I gave you three most probable answers here. Didn't you read that post? If you don't accept the reasoning, then refute it. Otherwise, you accept it, making your statement above odd. 
We continue with another bone of contention.
What do you think the author meant here? Did he mean that in no way are homosexual tendencies inherited?
If that's what he meant and he wanted to make sure everyone knew that's what he meant, why didn't he say "In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself inherited". Why say 'directly' inherited?
Now, I don't presume to be able to get into this guy's head and parse out what he really meant but my take on it is as follows:
..There is no z or xy chromosome that we can say directly causes homosexuality.
..These traits that the author spoke of are not direct causes but may be indirect causes. He has to believe this in order to be consistent with his opening statements.
Again scripter, you seem to be much more up on this subject than I and certainly know this guy better than I. What do you think he meant?
Well, enuf except that I still haven't seen an answer from anyone on this thread that make sense to me as to why would a young adult that hasn't been exposed to the bad behavior, that hasn't been abused, that's had the best environment, that hasn't had any of the behavioral reasons to be gay, be gay anyway.
But I gave you three most probable answers here. Didn't you read that post? If you don't accept the reasoning, then refute it. Otherwise, you accept it, making your statement above odd.