Yes, as a matter of fact I can prove my statement with references. Quite a few of them too, supplied to us by none other than medical professionals, as well as acclaimed and credentialed psychiatrists/psychologists.
 http://www.shrink-friendly.co.il/tau/article/14_2Byrd.pdf (my favorite)
[2-47] http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html (there's 46 in there, make sure you read them all)
That's close to 50 documents and that's only the tip of the iceberg. You see, once you diminish your bias, you can go back and look through the purported 'biological evidence' theories and you can see that even those too say the exact same thing but just with a different(more politically correct) title. When reading those ones it is important to note the equivocal language used. A flagrant sign of utilization of politics.
The mistake you're making is confusing thesis statements that are required to attain to political correctness with the actual science itself. The thing is, what I'm saying about the biological components only attaining to nothing other than predisposition HAS been proven(all of the studies are pointing indubitably in this specific direction, of course nothing has been technically proven, but hey, your own existence can't be proven to that extent either.). It is simply from a result of being naïve on the subject that you would purport that such a thing has not already been proven. The wealth of analysis and scientific evidences(provided by qualified professionals) should just about secure my position on this particular contention. Here is an excerpt from another one of my arguments that I feel does well to explain the authentic origins of homosexuality: http://blueevidence.blogspot.com/2010/09/excerpt.html.
"and this flawed scientific viewpoint is not valid and all of your points based on it are a fallacy."
Well, since we have clearly established that my points are indeed grounded upon a mass of irrefutable logic, analysis, and empirical evidence, it would be tremendously erroneous for you to claim it as an 'invalid and flawed scientific viewpoint. And, accordingly, the fact that I have proven myself turns the tables on you, and now all of your points are fallacious. It is apparent that I've already attained to victory here, and I could stop now if I so pleased. Regardless though, I opt for continuance of identification of your errors, as a favor to you, so you can realize that your position simply cannot be justified inside of a priori logic. (By the way, if you think that the discounting of homosexuality would gain international attention to the media, you my friend, are blind of all that is political, and if then, I do indeed pity you) (also you say my points are not valid because this has not been proven(which it has, as I have demonstrated) but your entire argument relies on the presupposition of the innateness of homosexuality.)