First, for the righties: Define "perverted" for me, please, because I think I must be pretty desensitized. How can what two adults, of sound mind, agree to do with one another be perverse?
Now, onto my main thought, choice vs genetics. I'll preface by saying that I don't think that homosexuality is a choice, any more than any other preference. Saying that it's therefore genetic, however, seems like a hardcore straw man argument. Even in light of the twin studies, which I don't believe prove genetics over social environment. It seems fairly obvious to me that if you subject people with close to identical genetics to identical social situations, their responses will be more similar to each other's than would be two people of less identical genes. This doesn't prove that the responses themselves are a direct result of any particular gene, just that you're subjecting two -more similar- test subjects to the same situations in one study than you are in the other.
That said, even if homosexuality is simply a matter of preference, it still isn't a choice. I don't think there's a gene that makes people prefer the taste of chocolate to the taste of celery, or a gene that makes people prefer country music to jazz, but I defy anyone reading this to just change one of your preferences. Quick test: those of you who prefer country music, stop liking it. Right now! I'll give you a minute. . . .
. . . .
. . . done yet? Do you hate country now? Good. Next step, I want you to make yourself honestly enjoy the hiphop rantings of popular artist, Ludacris. I know this is difficult for you newly ex-country listeners, but if preference is choice, you should be able to do it. Again, I'll give you a minute. . . .
. . . .
. . . done yet? Good. Now you've gone from loving country to hating it and loving Ludacris in stead, right? Purely a matter of choice, as is anything that isn't decided by your genes.
Excellent theory.
Lastly, to tie into the OP, I can't put a lot of faith into this study either. It's obvious that if someone is raised in an environment wherein he/she ends up viewing homosexuality as a sin or social deformity, yet possesses/develops (depending on whether its nature or nurture. . . I don't claim to know for certain) homosexual tendencies, they're going to be a lot more likely to be closeted than open. Finding examples where people who are overtly anti-gay are hiding their own homosexual desires doesn't prove that all or even most homophobes are closet gays, it only proves that gay people exist even in pockets of our society that abhor homosexuality, and that people who are raised within a culture that demonizes a trait that they possess end up being some conflicted motherfuckers. In essence, it proves only what's obvious, and to try and take it any further requires a leap in logic.