You make a good point, even if it is laregly theoretical.
As an ex-science junkie (mostly nuclear physics, geology, and paleobiology), I’ve learned the hard way that those who claim to be *least* theoretical are, in truth, likely to be the *most* theoretical and simply playing authority-word games.
Just like those who claim to be *most* literal in their use of the Bible are more likely to be *least* literal in following the message of God.
Same very human game.
And it’s least result is the rest of us being fooled by someone else’s arrogance. The worst result is death, destruction, and more caused by people who have “all the facts” to “justify” their grossly sinful pursuits.
Most scientists today remind me more of Romans 1 than anything — they worship the created rather than the Creator. They waste the brains God gave them on trying to arrogantly re-make and control (even if “only” in the defined reality) of God’s created world, rather than humbly, joyfully, and gratefully learning more to function as part of and within God’s created world.
It’s one of the reasons I left science behind. I finally got too disgusted with the *huge* difference between what’s supposedly followed (the scientific method) and what’s actually followed (summarized in the story of the six blind men falsely-describing an elephant, based on the teeny little piece of the beast they were aware of — “The elephant is a snake!”, “No! The elephant is a tree trunk!” Etc). Most of what’s called “science” today is nothing more than a false religion, adhered to by people who claim to have no religion. Very frustrating for those of us who’d like the real thing, instead!
My suggestions for possibilities for why homosexuality would exist were just that, and meant more to inspire scientific imagination than to simply create more pseudo-facts or an opportunity for scientific argument.
If it were to me, I’d spend more time reviewing the *huge* diversity for family-type, sexual orientation, gender identity, and so on within God’s animal world, and try that way to discover what God might be up to. For example, what about that species of duck where a family consists of one female, one older male, and one (also non-related) younger male — and while the younger male works within the family, he never ever gets to mate/pass on his genetics?
Seeing this and all the thousands upon thousands of other such variations from what Darwinism says should exist, my first thought would be that I need to throw out Darwin and start looking with new, fresh eyes, if I truly wanted to understand what God may have had in mind with His created work.
As a Christian, I’d also have to accept that there may be no other reason for God to have created something to be some particular way except that it pleased Him to do so!
That’s completely unacceptable to modern science thinking, of course, but that only reveals its built-in arrogance and God-rejection (Romans 1 again).
My larger suggestion is that if we learn to stop letting fundamentalist-religionists define us, but then turn to allowing fundamentalist-scientists to define us instead (which is what most Queer people have done to date, it seems), we’ve simply moved out of the tiger cage and into the lion cage.
How many of us who look to science to justify us, for example, remember science’s role in eugenics (which sought to get rid of homosexuals because we didn’t make science-sense), but also in creating nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, industry that poisons our natural, God-given environment, and so on? There is *nothing* “neutral”, sinless, or “unbiased” in science. Like religion, it simply reveals the inner heart of sinful humanity.