Even when presented with evidence the fool refuses to see. I'm going to bail out on this thread. Someone only wants it open so they can argue.
I responded (in my own words) to the Biobank/23andme study you cited(evidence). Ironically I used the same journal you used to tell me about 5 gay genes to back up my own responses.
Let me cite
my responses. As well as the
responses from scientific studies.
There is no gay gene.
There are genes that contribute to sexuality but there is no gene that says this person is chosen to be gay.
"But taken together, these
five genes explained
less than 1 percent of the
differences in sexual activity among people in the study. When the researchers looked at the overall genetic similarity of individuals who had had a
same-sex experience,
genetics seemed to account for between 8 and 25 percent of the behavior"
“We found that the
genetic variants
associated with having had
same-sex partners are
also associated with having more opposite-sex partners in people who’ve
never had a same-sex partner"
The study you cited did not even ask the participants about what their sexual preference was, only their sexual behavior.
"The researchers emphasize that their study dealt primarily with
sexual experiences, not sexual orientation or identity"
"The downside of using these huge data sets was that
the studies were not specifically designed to find genes for sexual preference, so we were limited by the questions participants happened to have been asked about
their sexual behaviour. For both UK Biobank and 23andMe, participants reported whether they had ever had a same-sex sexual partner."
Not only that but it also concluded that genetic twins often have completely different sexual preferences.
"Across measures,
heterosexual male twins responded more
strongly to women than to men. Their
homosexual co-twins showed an opposite pattern. Heterosexual female twins responded equally to both sexes, whereas their
homosexual co-twins responded somewhat more to women than men. These
differences within pairs were similar to differences between unrelated heterosexual and homosexual males and females. Our study provides physiological
evidence confirming twins’ discordant sexual orientations, thereby
supporting the importance of the non-shared environment for the development of sexual orientation and sexual arousal."
So back to your exerpt,
Your 5 "gay genes" only accounted for as little as 8% to 25% of the gay population.
Much more, those same 5 "gay genes" that were a commonality in homosexuals, were also found amongst heteros.
Genetic Twins, despite having the same genetic code (5 gay genes), somehow develop different sexual orientations.
Religion aside,
the
science and evidence cited above strongly suggests that people
aren't born gay.
If people were born gay, darwinism(natural selection) would have wiped gays out thousand of years ago since gays can't reproduce.
So if people aren't born gay then how do they become gay? The answer is probably environmental factors outside of their genetics (like Sinning and Satan, grooming, drag story hour, BDSM parades for children, etc)