Dave the Gnome: "To be honest I find following links to help people prove their own points quite tedious and a tiresome exercise."

Yeah?..The last link you posted to 'prove your point' backfired. The 'Headline read, "Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows".....but when reading the article, it said THIS:

""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."

Greater than the genes??...Did it say that??...Didn't I tell you that over two years ago???

..and it goes on to say(same study), "The gene or genes in the Xq28 region that influence sexual orientation have a LIMITED and VARIABLE impact."

..and then it says, (Now pay attention) "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."

...and this, "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."

...and this one, "...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."

..and this,"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."


Then you posted this link:
Don't

I can see why you think it's ".....quite tedious and a tiresome exercise.".....Playin' both sides of your own argument!

Oh well, back to the drawing boards!

GfS