D.F.: "It's pretty well established that sexual orientation is genetics based, although, like evolution early on, the mechanism hasn't been fully worked out yet. It appears so far that the Xq28 gene is involved, but there is still work to do yet."

And the following sentence:

"It is unscientific—and pretty foolish—to claim that same-sex orientation is NOT genetic simply because YOU DON'T LIKE IT. For whatever your reason might be!"

It's pretty unscientific and foolish to say it is solely genetic when the study you posted says:

""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."

So, in light of, "..OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLL.." perhaps you can scientifically and foolishly spin your way out of what the study says...after all, you posted it!!!

Care to comment on, "...OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER ROLL.."?????..WITHOUT SPIN!!

What do you NOT understand about the words, "GREATER ROLE"???

GfS