Here, I'll help you out, since you don't REALLY read to COMPREHEND!
(Notice how many quotes from the link that are saying that they HAVEN'T found it....even from one of the guys who was in on the research!!!!). You got a short memory..this was posted yesterday....
.............................................................................
Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 May 14 - 02:14 PM

From a 'comment', below your article, on the same page:

"You clearly died pretty early on in the article as it repeatedly states that it is very clearly not all in the genes.
I believe there is a comprehension gene also that occasionally goes missing, no need for a genetic test in extreme cases...."

Here's some quotes from the same link of the study:

"Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear."

"Researchers have SPECULATED in the past that genes linked to homosexuality in men MAY have survived evolution because they happened to make women who carried them more fertile"

"In follow-up work, he found that 33 out of 40 gay brothers inherited similar genetic markers on the Xq28 region of the X chromosome, SUGGESTING key genes resided there."

"The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a limited and variable impact."

"Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay."

"The flawed thinking behind a genetic test for sexual orientation is clear from studies of twins, which show that the identical twin of a gay man, who carries an exact replica of his brother's DNA, is more likely to be straight than gay. That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up every gene linked to sexual orientation would still be less effective than flipping a coin."

"While genes do contribute to sexual orientation, other multiple factors play a greater role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb."

"We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is NOT COMPLETELY DETERMINATIVE; there are certainly OTHER environmental factors involved."

"Last year, before the latest results were made public, one of Bailey's colleagues, Alan Sanders, said the findings could not and should not be used to develop a test for sexual orientation."

"When people say there's a gay gene, it's an oversimplification," Sanders said. "There's more than one gene, and genetics is not the whole story. Whatever gene contributes to sexual orientation, you can think of it as much as contributing to heterosexuality as much as you can think of it contributing to homosexuality. It contributes to a variation in the trait."

"This is not controversial or surprising and is nothing people should worry about. All human psychological traits are heritable, that is, they have a genetic component," he said. "Genetic factors explain 30 to 40% of the variation between people's sexual orientation. However, we don't know where these genetic factors are located in the genome. So we need to do 'gene finding' studies, like this one by Sanders, Bailey and others, to have a better idea where potential genes for sexual orientation may lie."

"Steven Rose, of the Open University, said: "What worries me is not the extent, if at all, to which our genetic, epigenetic or neural constitution and development affect our sexual preferences, but the huge moral panic and RELIGIOUS and POLITICAL AGENDAS which surrounds the question."

.....AND THIS ONE, which at first looks to be Bailey's position, but he did NOT take it further, which is deceptive by omission:

"Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice," said Bailey. "We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved."

Other factors??? You mean the hormonal influences cause by the mother's stresses and/or resentments in the womb???
Does a mother who takes drugs (heroin, crack, cocaine, etc)during pregnancy set up the 'receptors' to cause the baby to be born with an addiction to those same substances??...The answer is a CLEAR, DEFINITIVE YES!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that 'genetic'? No, it just makes it clear that the baby is born with a 'choice-less' craving to satisfy the 'receptors' with the drug that it got accustomed to in the womb. It is the same principle. The receptors, once they get fed, not particularly from a 'substance' but rather a 'conditioned' hormone, altered by the effects of resentment/stress WILL have a DIRECT result on the baby!.......and ALL the studies, including this one, point to that direction...but, as the poster commented, on the page of the article:

"You clearly died pretty early on in the article as it repeatedly states that it is very clearly not all in the genes.
I believe there is a comprehension gene also that occasionally goes missing, no need for a genetic test in extreme cases...."

Sorry, NO definitive, conclusive findings in this study to hang one's hat on!


...Oh, and if one can NOT change their sexual preferences, what about:

Michael Glatze (born c. 1975)[1] was co-founder of Young Gay America and a former advocate for gay rights. Glatze received media coverage for publicly announcing that he no longer identified as a homosexual and denouncing homosexuality."

Somehow that keeps getting ignored....it must be that, "...comprehension gene also that occasionally goes missing,..."

GfS