Being gay is a fetish.

[John V]

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.

I'm not getting hung up on semantics. I'm sticking to my original purposes. You like to shift arguments to new ground. For instance, you've said that factors during childhood might influence eventual sexuality, and that hose factors may not be conscious choices of the individual. But, as I'm arguing that people are not born gay, as people are born black, those factors, even if true, are irrelevant to me. Factors during childhood don't make people black.

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

Exactly.

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,

LOL - unambiguously stating that the cause is ambiguous.

I have the actual science

Let's see it.

and the testimony of gay people,

Which is subject to confirmation bias.

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?

Speaking of arguments from ignorance, here you go again.

My point is this: you do not have anywhere near a consensus of mainstream science as to the causes of homosexuality,

Neither do you.

meaning that you are severely overselling your case,

Not nearly as much as you. I have twin studies and cross-cultural studies. All you have is the personal feelings of people with a personal interest in the outcome.