Being gay is a fetish.

[Esquilax]

No, considering that I'm arguing against the comparison to skin color, it's valid.

Only if you're arguing against the strictest possible interpretation of the comparison, which I don't think it's at all helpful to do. Even if it's not purely genetic, the comparison is still valid in that skin color and sexuality both are not choices. Origin is almost a moot point, considering the purpose of the argument itself. You're getting hung up on semantics.

For all your use of logical fallacies, you're certainly willing to ignore confirmation bias when it suits you.

Confirmation bias? As if gay people shouldn't be trusted when the topic under discussion is what goes on in their own heads?

At least I'm partially justified. All you have is personal testimony which could result from confirmation bias, and - you do this a lot - you accuse me of an argument from ignorance when you're smack dab in the middle of one yourself.

No, I also have the other studies, I have the APA stating unambiguously that there's no consensus as to the cause or causes of homosexuality, I have the actual science and the testimony of gay people, which I think is more of a direct hint than the interpretation of a study that doesn't say what you think it says, to reach a conclusion you'd reached before looking at the study. And if your only response to those testimonies is "oh, they're lying," well, I don't have to furnish a response to "nuh uh!" now do I?

I could understand high, but less than 100%, concordance due to such factors, but not concordance rates as low as 7%. Also note the comparison to race. Twins are concordant on skin color at or near 100%.

My point is this: you do not have anywhere near a consensus of mainstream science as to the causes of homosexuality, meaning that you are severely overselling your case, and committing an argument from ignorance, when you say "what I think is the default, and you have to prove me wrong or else I'm right!" on the back of flawed studies.