“No, not really. While it is tempting to simplify it to a matter of “homosexuals cause homosexuality,” the data reported here are not sufficient to draw that conclusion.”
I was referring to the nature v nurture debate...which, I believe, is explicitly addressed...whether or not she is paid, the results would indicate, in this case, that nurture has more to do with behavior than nature...
She mentions that ... but she's not justified in her certainty even there. The causes of human behavior are enormously complicated and, in at least some cases, behavior have a definite genetic component, even if that component is not soley responsible, and even if one can identify no specific gene to cause it.
An interesting example of this effect in animals, is that domesticated animals, which bred in part for certain behaviors, are much more likely to have spots ... the point being that the genetic aspects of behavior may be spread across the genome in unpredictable and hard-to-identify ways.
In any case, the fact remains that this particular study has nothing conclusive to say on the matter of nature vs. nurture in the origins of homosexual desires, which are not the same thing as homosexual behavior.
whether or not she is paid, the results would indicate, in this case, that nurture has more to do with behavior than nature...
But that's just it: the "nature" part of the question would be manifested on the "desire" side of the equation, whereas "nature" would be more likely to affect the likelihood of acting on the desires.
BTW -- the reason why I bring up the fact of her being paid is to highlight the fact that she's got a vested interest in making you think a certain way; and at the same time, she's got a vested interest in minimizing any discussion of evidence that runs counter to what her think-tank says.
She's essentially a lobbyist, in other words -- and I don't trust any lobbyist to give me an impartial and objective view of whatever snake oil they're trying to sell.