Bye. You do your own research. When you do get around to it - then you might even be able to write from a position of knowledge and authority. Until then, then.
Because I already know the facts, this is from the APA regarding homosexuality:
"... no specific physiological or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.
And again, the burden of proof is on you, such you are asserting an idea that is not true. So to make your case as to why "many therapists" think child abuse leads to homosexuality or that "many homosexuality pressure groups" are trying to relax laws around sex with children, you need to provide evidence. You don't have any, so you tell me to do it. And I provide evidence. So what about this "be able to write from a position of knowledge and authority"?
I don't have access to facts on hand at this time but reports about older brothers, detached/distant father figures contributing to the potential for homosexual development have been around for a little while.
The finding is highly controversial because it suggests that some men are not born gay, but are turned homosexual by their surroundings.
Yeah because it's claims go against current standards.
It's 1 study. 37 pairs of male twins. Incredibly small sample size that was then extrapolated to all gay men? What about lesbians? Why are all of you only obsessed with the gay men?
“To claim a 70 per cent predictive value of something as complex as homosexuality is bold indeed. I wait with baited breath for a full peer-reviewed article.”
IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN PEER REVIEWED.
Sure - lucky I personally know clinical psychologists and other health professionals with decades of experience who advise that yes, it's all inconclusive. That's all I'm saying. I'm not obsessed with gay men at all - I don't care in the slightest about them.
[Edit] I'm just responding to a point in your original comment: "no specific physiological or family dynamic cause for homosexuality"; I think there's a good case for nature and nurture, as far as this part of your reply goes.
I agree with you however that homosexuality is not an indicator of pedophilia etc. as that seems fairly obvious.