The findings show that identical stretches of DNA on three chromosomes were shared by about 60 percent of gay brothers in the study compared to the about 50 percent normally expected by chance.
At minimum, you've still got to account for at least 40% of the phenomenon.
Ping
choice.
I believe that homosexuality, alcoholism, obesity and a number of other behaviors can be influenced by your genes. I.e. your genes "pre-dispose" you towards certain behavior, in some cases weakly and in other cases perhaps strongly. But the bottom line is that these genes are not enough by themselves to force you into a certain behavior. In the end, you choose your own behavior.
Years ago (1990 or 1991?) there was a study on identical twins raised apart. There were a lot of correlations found - mostly weak I think - in a large number of behaviors. Such things as whether they got married, what names they picked for their children, whether they had pet dogs or cats or both, and so on. When it came to homosexuality, there was a correlation somewhat larger than would be expected by random chance, but it was nowhere near 100%. If gayness was caused only by genes, then there should be close to a 100% correlation. If it had nothing to do with genes then it should be zero. So the fact that it was somewhere in the middle means that the genes can increase someone's chance of being a homosexual, but something else has to be there too - such as environmental influences, cultural influences, individual choices, etc.
Unfortuantely this gets us back into the eugenics debates, which is increasingly what genetics and abortion are combining to mean. You're seeing more and more abortions because of genetic defects, and this is being hailed by Planned Parenthood, one of the prime movers in the eugenics movement in the first half of the 20th century. And all too many intellectuals are afraid to stand up and condemn this horror for fear of being percieved as "anti-abortion."
Now we have a possible genetic predisposition towards being homosexual. Will those babies be aborted to prevent making them go through that "pain?" The slippery slope that the pro-abortion crowd did so much to foster is about to drop them over a precipice of their own making.
There are corrallaries to this that are truly frightening. Allowing abortions to avoid unwanted genetic traits that are horrific (spinabifade, for example - an argument I disagree with but can admit that I am not wise enough to make that call for someone else) has been widely cited as the "moral and compassionate thing to do." Now that has progressed in much of the world to abortions to select out "wrong sex" children (usually women - take that NOW) and even things like "wrong hair color" are being considered.
This is all only one step away from requiring abortions to avoid the 'costs to society' of certain defects, such as diabetes, obesity, bad eyesight, etc. The other part of this that is already drifting around the edges is that folks with these "defects" will not be insured. I have had to fight my insurance company every time I've needed a corneal transplant (3, so far) because they don't treat "bad eyesight," refusing to cover things like glasses or contacts. Why is that OK? Isn't that discrimination under the ADA?
Back on topic, eugenics is one of the greatest evils ever contemplated by the mind of modern, scientific man. It is no coincidence that Hitler greatly revered the founder of Planned Parenthood, who argued strongly for using abortions to eliminate the "undesireables," such as "mental defectives, coloreds, etc." Wasn't Margaret Sanger a treasure? (note for DUmmies, that's sarcasm)
Gays may win their argument for "rights" by using this "news" to say that homosexuality is not behavior but is a real physical classification for humans. Unfortunately that may lead to that class of human beings becoming viewed as defectives that must be selected out and prevented from being born.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see GLAD and NARAL throwing fire bombs at each other over this?