But whether they are the same or not is not the question. The question is the extent to which one is informative on the other, in cross-cultural and trans-hist

But whether they are the same or not is not the question. The question is the extent to which one is informative on the other, in cross-cultural and trans-historical studies. If we ignore the rest, I suppose we could say that only in the US is homosexuality biologically determined but that would be silly wouldn't it? Simply put, you can't talk about trans-historical and cross-cultural patterns if you limit the discussion to homosexual relationships in the form they exist in the US today. That's tautologically true. So if you limit it that way, it's a fancy way of avoiding any cross-cultural/trans-historical analysis that could be meaningful.