Thanks, Pis Mise,

<<Interesting link(s), PJ; then there is hope for a cure?>>

I'm not sure how you get that from the articles found in the Scholar search to which I linked (at least not from the articles listed in the first couple of pages of search results), but I guess if our technology were advanced enough, then we could "cure" any trait.

Although, I think "alter" would be a better word to use, if I understand you correctly.

"alter'
does fit better.

I'm not the one given to terminological inexactitudes MH. And one notes, you claim to be well read, but clearly haven't read the reports By geneticist Alan Sanders and his team, repeat, team!

When I wrote about this, just weeks ago, I even named two of the genes found only in homosexuals, and there's probably three more!?

Identical twins have different fingerprints, different retina scans, different tongue patterns etc.

Therefore, very few identical (already rare phenomena) twins are actually identical! If for example, the fertilised egg (rare) was XXXY, when the egg splits, then one of the twins could get XX (girl) genes and the other XY (boy) genes.

So your claim falls on it's face right there, as unprovable!

Further, one could be left handed the other right handed!

At the end of the day, we have to play the hand nature and our genetic legacy handed us!

Then suffer the bigotry and intolerance of those who fatuously believe anyone, but anyone, would chose homosexuality! But particularly in any Islamic country or Putin's Russia where they can suffer all kinds of very negative consequences. Including imprisonment and being brutally bashed within an inch of your life!

I remember as a boy, The lefties having to tolerate all kinds of physical punishment from the normal right handed community, who knew to a generic man, these flawed and less than perfect humans, chose this aberration, just because they were non-compliant little rebels. Suggest you check with spellcheck (Australian English) before you label me a liar!

The people that resort to playing the man, have no intellectual capacity to carry the debate on the merit of the case! But always react, like conditioned Pavlov's dogs, with fact free, broken record rhetoric! As you so ably demonstrate as you prove me right, again and again!
Alan B.

"Sexuality may not be determined by genes alone (and almost certainly not by one gene)"

No. Sexuality is definitely NOT determined by genes alone. If that we the case then monozygotic twins would always have the same sexual orientation. In fact identical twins have very low rates of of concordance vis a vis sexuality - somewhere between 5 and 12% depending on who you believe (eg Bearman and Brückner 2002). That is, if one twin is homosexual it is very unlikely that the other will be, which is completely contrary to what you'd expect if genes were the main determinant.

So yes, its likely to be a combination of environmental and genetic factors with the latter being a minor factor. But it can't be entirely ruled out that genetics play no part.

AlanB however, based, as usual, on some gumpf he saw on Youtube, was asserting that not only was it proven that it was all down to genes but that the genes had been identified. Perhaps you'll have better luck trying to educate AlanB to be more discerning in his 'research'. What I find most disconcerting is that, having shown himself to be a rather gullible dill, AlanB then excoriates others as fools for not also falling for his various misunderstandings on reality.

You can, if you like, link to your source book. Since I'm in general agreement with your point, I probably wouldn't spend too much time checking its bona fides. Its only when your links have a suspicious odor that I check things out. Having done so once and had my suspicions confirmed, I doubt I'd bother again.

mhaze,

Thank you for agreeing with me so emphatically at the start there, while somehow managing to make it look like you were refuting what I had said.

<<So yes, its likely to be a combination of environmental and genetic factors with the latter being a minor factor.>>

It is not known for sure to what degree genes play a role, as there are shortcomings to the twin studies done in this area which make determining a rate difficult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Criticisms

<<But it can't be entirely ruled out that genetics play no part.>>

Yes, it can. That behaviour and personality traits are the result of a combination of both genetic and environmental factors is no longer debated. It is impossible for genes to not play a role in a person’s behaviour. What IS now debated is how exactly these factors interact to produce the behaviours that they do.

<<Its only when your links have a suspicious odor that I check things out. Having done so once and had my suspicions confirmed, I doubt I'd bother again.>>

Oh, don’t keep us all in suspense, will you. Please, tell us when this happened? When did I post a suspicious link that you confirmed was worthy of your suspicion?

I think you're telling porky pies again. It's becoming a bit of a habit for you, isn't it?

*Denotes sarcasm

"*Denotes sarcasm"

But there was no asterisk!!

So was the entire post sarcasm?

"while somehow managing to make it look like you were refuting what I had said."

I don't see where that happened. It seems we are in furious agreement here while having minor quibbles as to the relative importance or otherwise of nature/nurture.

"Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). ...He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying, that’s the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, 'You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.' That’s the terrorism part."

There's an element of that in your approach.