Symons concluded that the fact that men were more interested in casual sex than women regardless of whether they were gay or straight showed that this tendency was a more basic part of male sexuality than preference for the same or the opposite sex. This seems highly plausible, and should worry anyone who thinks sexual orientation is biologically determined.

Related to that, and I know I’ve asked before: I would still like you to outline what you believe these inconsistencies are. You often mention they exist, but I’ve yet to see you lay out what they are (and why you think they are an inconsistency).

While you may not want to state what you think will eventually be concluded at this point, you should at least be able to say what remains unanswered for you. Yes?

I’m not going to speculate here what your motives may be, but we’d have to consider there is a real possiblity that you are playing with “God of the gaps” in order to promote doubt in and of itself. This, of course, helps many avoid a crisis of faith…

There remain many unanswered questions. That does not alter the fact that solid evidence for a biological basis for sexual attraction has emerged. Obviously those researchers are convinced about that. The question remaining is not whether there is such a basis, but the exact mechanism/s of it.

Here’s a good illustation for the readers: go play “20 Questions” with a bunch of kids. If they manage to correctly piece together the answer before they’ve been given all questions… you just observed the scientific method in action.

Knowing, after just 2 Yes/No questions, that the object is both “big” and “a bird” answers a great deal about what the object is not. You can sure it’s not a whale. Or a gay man.

Whether it’s an ostrich, rhea, cassowary or emu remains to be determined.