You still have completely and utterly ducked every single question I've asked to explain history or contemporary examples of blatant homosexuality done for sociological reasons. And you're doing it for the exact reason I posted umpteenth pages ago, because to acknowledge it is too damaging to your ideology and argument, you must dodge and not answer it. Now you did it again, you took cultures where it absolutely was a choice to practice same sex coupling and you just turned it biological, because you redefined what biology means to encompass all things organic. Where is the "its not a choice" argument, where is the DNA with Socrates trying to hook up with a young Alcibiades?Not latest talking points, latest research.
How wouldn't they be biological? Why can't it be? Where is the contradiction as opposed to current homosexuality?
Which has nothing to do with the actual study. As I already explained your perception of the study is not consistent with what the study actually entails. After this one you can bet there will be a lot more. Which is why this argument is so awkward. That eventually another study will come out and then another, etc etc.
And your "latest research" are just your talking points. You don't even understand them. You've already collapsed the fields of study such as sociology and psychology into biology, just to try to make your point that everything involving anything organic is biology.
The entire frame work of the political narrative of LBGTQ rights in western society hedges completely on it "not being a choice," it has to be something chemical, or genetic, or physiological, or else there is no "evidence" of it being "biological." So of course there will be more studies done, people like you will guarantee it. There is a lot of money to be made, lots of grants to be won, and lots of pro-LBGTQ people absolutely dying for better talking points than "its like, totally, all organic, so its like totally biological, man..."