Although both position gives insight to the causation of homosexuality none of them either explains what is the really cause, hence, none can be said to have won or has indicators to win in the near future rendering essentialist versus social constructionist debate is ultimately irresolvable because the two positions that they take are not commensurate.
On concluding on their debate, essentialism and social construct views of homosexuality not only rely on different approaches to finding the answers and ask different questions in their approach to finding these answers, but also offer different answers to same social issue (Connell and Gorge 2002).
However, it should be noted that social constructionism and essentialism have their own limitations in relation to explaining the social phenomena that underlie homosexuality. It should be pointed out that, social constructionism theory is more of a critical analysis strategy rather than it is not a scientific theory. For this case, social constructionism makes a poor quality theory as it aims at pointing out how information and concepts within social discourse support various social groups and particular versions of social reality (Delamater and shibley, 1998).
Thus, lacks the beliefs have no objective value due to its banking on the social narratives about reality as their evidences. While on the other hand, Essentialism relies on a notion of true essences and using more scientific researches yet homosexuality is a social issue and can only be well understood by integration of social approach to support biomedical facts limits the validity, credibility and reliability for the theory. Therefore, we are left to think that either of the approach need to be clearly substantiated to have any probably meaning to the in explaining the social phenomenon of homosexuality.