Joe – It is always nice when critics post what they think is a clincher but it turns out that the citation works against them.

Not looking for a clincher, just a different point of view. One not so narrow as yours.
And you, as usual misconstrue my point. That sexuality is fluid, not static, is my point.
You state it here…

The gay man was not changing his sexual orientation but his attraction preferences.

Change is the topic. If our attraction preferences can change from black to white to red to yellow, then why not from male to female? It doesent seem so far fetched to me.
Actually, (below) on association, a foot fetish comes to mind.

Even if part of the brain is strongly associated with a particular sexuality it should be possible to change it. Stopping a sexual activity and avoiding stimulation of that brain region, and plunging into some other intense brain activity for months would lead to a diminishing of the intensity of that sexual response. Months is about the timescale of first significant change. That can be true for learning a musical instrument too!

To this proposition, Safron responded,

But the devil is in the details here. How large is the change? How permanent? People can frequently modify their behavior on short time-scales but find themselves going back to their old ways on longer time scales. These arm-chair speculations are no substitution for real studies actually looking at the efficacy of therapy designed to change orientation.

No substitute indeed. Safron makes a good observation. What does plasticity mean in terms of durability?

On durability, the examples in the book would be a good place to start. Don’t you think?

And then how would be able to know unless research can find some verification. Unless the Whiteheads are keeping secrets, we can only go on what research we have. Apparently, learning a new orientation is not as easy as learning a new musical instrument, given the modest changes reported in existing studies.

I don’t think anyone is so naive as to believe the easy musical instrument comparison, but easy was not their point. That change is possible was their point.
All you did was distract/distort from that…
Wouldn’t you agree?

Even if only 1% had a categorical shift from gay to straight, that would be enough to prove that change is possible, correct?

I don’t know what percentage of people who play the National Lottery win the jackpot, but most weeks someone does, so that’s enough to prove that it’s possible to win it, correct? But I certainly wouldn’t advise anyone to plan their life on the assumption that they’ll win it; on the contrary, I’d advise them to act on the assumption that they won’t.
To be sure, the two things aren’t exactly comparable. Many would maintain that both are money-wasters, but going out and buying a lottery ticket doesn’t usually take long, whereas trying to change one’s sexual orientation can swallow up years – sometimes even decades – of a person’s life.

I would also like to see Warren express clear support for doing away with any laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Why would you want to wish the attendant tsuris on a nice guy like Warren?
Seriously, I’ve been a participant for years on Republican/conservative/libertarian gay sites (like gaypatriot.net) as well as libertarian-leaning, non-gay sites that sometimes support “gay rights legislation” and sometimes argue against it (like volokh.com). And I can attest that there are bean-counting, fault-finding attack dogs on both sides who are ready to pounce on people for not being ideologically pure enough or for having mixed loyalties.
For example, if Warren declared that he supported SSM legislation but opposed ENDA, some people would take his opposition to ENDA as proof that he’s essentially homophobic, and others would take his support for SSM as proof that he’s been brainwashed by the Militant Homosexual Agenda. (I have no idea what WT’s stance is on either SSM or ENDA, but I will say that it’s possible to be for or against either or both based on costs/benefits analysis and other pragmatic considerations, without ever getting into moral or theological arguments about homosexuality.)
So I think it’s much better for Warren to stay fairly neutral on American political debates about sexual orientation and gender identity, except perhaps to remind conservative Christians that “well, the plaintiffs could have avoided the discrimination by changing their religion, or by hiding their religion” is not a viable defense in cases of alleged religious discrimination, although everyone agrees that religion is a learned and mutable trait.

And I can attest that there are bean-counting, fault-finding attack dogs on both sides who are ready to pounce on people for not being ideologically pure enough or for having mixed loyalties.

True enough. I’ve frequented both of the sites you mentioned in your post and can back up what you say, but, honestly – so what? You almost always see these types of reactions with just about any issue. Sometimes they seem more prevalent when dealing with civil rights issues. Its good to be reminded of this though I suppose. My point is that these types of reactions are not new