The only disproving needed is that you have no proof.
It's hard to ignore the mountain of proof, published in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals by licensed mental health professionals. The results are not bull's eye consistent, but they all point in the same direction.
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/issues/v58n1/ffull/yoa9456.html
"People with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders ... Compared with heterosexual men, homosexual men had significantly higher 12-month and lifetime rates of mood and anxiety disorders ... homosexual women reported a substantially higher rate of substance use disorders than did heterosexual women ..." .
I just popped "gay demographics" into Google and grabbed a few that came up. I didn't see a need to go any further because it proves the point. Which is...
As we have seen, even the definition of homosexuality isn't consistent from study to study. Therefore an expansive or restrictive definition of the term could expand or contract the percentage obtained as the result of such a study.
... that it's remarkable how consistant your chosen studies are, re: prevalence of homosexuality. Except for Gebhard & Johnson's re-evaluation of the Kinsey data -- they seem to be, according to you, pretty accurate in everything else they found, except that: their prevalence statistic seems to have been abit inconvenient.
The results are not bull's eye consistent, but they all point in the same direction.
One wouldn't know that from your essay. Or your follow-up arguments with madg,which seems to consist of "since 100% of squares are rectangles, therefore 100% of rectangles are squares" -- the presence or absence of pathological conditions in a population with a given characteristic is irrelevant to whether or not said given characteristic is in and of itself a pathological condition.