This whole discussion of what causes gayness is offensive, because unlike heterosexuality, gayness is presented as some sort of brokeness or disease. It is assumed to be the result of trauma, developmental deficits, bad parenting, abuse, etc. It’s a illness model — and that reveals the underlying, unscientific (usually religious) prejudice.

These words suggest to me either a weak understanding of or a disinterest in the hard sciences regarding certain topics, which is perfectly fine, but which is not fine for others; or a disinterest in human behavior, which again is fine, but not fine for others.
In addition, it appears you have positioned yourself atop a moral high horse so tall you may not have a clear view of what’s beneath and so you read an evil intent into what you think you see. Is it possible you have no interest in seeing at all and so have concluded that no one else should either? Perhaps not, but the use of words like “offensive” and “prejudice” are common rhetorical devices often meant to stifle discussion rather than debating the points on their own merits.
If I’ve caused offense, I am certainly not happy about it, but your words suggesting offense won’t silence me. If you are offended, you have the option of not reading what those who are likely to offend you say. Or, you can engage in a discussion and agree to disagree. However, one ought not expect that because something might be offensive, it won’t be uttered. Of what use is such a forum as that?
Debates in other forums on other topics, the hot issues of our times–the stimulus or pork package (depending on how one views it), immigration reform, border control, bank and homeowner bailouts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the genocide in Darfur, the West Bank settlements, etc. would also bring about comments that might offend, but saying “that’s offensive” is not reason to stop debate.
This is, in part, a science blog; one of Warren’s major topics is sexuality. Comments about science research– hypotheses, theories, etc. about sexuality– are appropriate and to be expected.
We know, in a sense, the cause of heterosexuality–the evolutionary directive to reproduce, even if we haven’t identified the mechanisms, the specific cells/neurons that identify a target mate for reproductive success. Thus, scientists usually study the anomaly, not the norm.
So, since science hasn’t identified the cause of homosexuality, do you presume to tell scientists and those who read science research blogs that they ought not consider certain etiologies because they offend your sensibilities?
You seem to be saying, “Go ahead and study, but be sure you don’t propose a hypothesis to test which I don’t like; be sure you don’t come up with an outcome I don’t like.”
That’s just not the way it works.