[taxed2death]

"In fact science, including the posted article, is quite hostile to the born gay argument."

Ummmmmmmmm no.

The article states that there is not a "gay gene"

The article... pretty clearly states that "sexual orientation is genetically influenced..."...and that there are in fact "predispositions"


"sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predetermination"


As I read this article.... it appears that there's a pretty big chunk of gray area there. Not to mention that Scientists haven't figured out what the majority of "junk DNA" plays in the make up of sexuality. So for this guy to come out and say there is no "gay" gene is a teeny bit presumptuous.

If one believes in G_D....is one to REALLY believe that there is "junk DNA"?


LOL

Did he blow his nose on the grand assembly line and dribble a bit of "junk DNA" into the human genome?




End result>>> just one more inconclusive waste of time / money study.

[scripter]

The article states that there is not a "gay gene"

And there isn't, no matter what the radicals pushing the homosexual agenda say.

The article... pretty clearly states that "sexual orientation is genetically influenced..."...and that there are in fact "predispositions"

Uh-huh. That doesn't mean anybody is born gay nor that homosexuality his hardwired. Linkages, associations, heritability, etc, must all be understood to have an informed opinion on the matter. You can't pull comments out of context and expect science to agree with you.