Don, I read the whole thing...and the comments, too.

This is reporting the exact SAME study that Dave the Gnome posted, and even included some of the very same conclusions....including:

(8th paragraph)
"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."

AND>>>>
(10th paragraph)
"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."

This is nothing new, and if you read the comments after the article, some of the posters shredded it for the same thing!..I don't understand your renewed zeal for this article on the same flawed study.
You're trying to beat a dead horse that already got beat up.

Comments from posters:

sandgrinder

14 February 2014 4:45am
"Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows
The genes are not sufficient or necessary to make men gay but do play some role in sexuality, according to US research

Have they identified the 'straight' gene yet?

The Venus of Willendorf wants to know."

expatandhappy sandgrinder

14 February 2014 6:52am
51 Likes

"Just died laughing at this 'expert' article. If it's in the genes then they would have all died out long ago."



notdrowningjustwavin expatandhappy

14 February 2014 6:59am
634 Likes

"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...."

Jeff Gauthier

14 February 2014 3:20am
133

"Nature/nurture is just a distraction. The two are not mutually distinct. The central problem with trying to isolate the "natural causes" of a homosexual sexual orientation is that a "homosexual sexual orientation" (and sexual orientation more generally) is itself a social construction. That's not to say it's not real or that it's a casual choice, but rather that it's unclear how "homosexual" one has to be (how many partners, how many many, fantasies, etc.) to count as "homosexual." In a culture that has a long history of compulsory heterosexuality, relatively few people are likely to self-identify as homosexual. On the other hand, in a culture that has no such taboos (e.g., the ancient Athenians), it wouldn't occur to anyone to think that who she has sex with constitutes a sexual identity or orientation."

and on and on......

Don this is old stuff...and if you re-read the sensationalists sentences, it reverts to 'May', 'may suggest' 'speculates'...

Ok, I read it.....nothing there!

GfS