You meant “Once again, notice that the homosexual apologists homosexuals have taken their ball and gone home".
All I want to know is how can there be environmental influence on an imaginary gene or genetic marker if we don’t know what gene or sequence to look for?
Really? Let's look at what you quoted and said in conclusions: "The lack of 100% concordance in monozygotic twins suggests that genetic events alone are not responsible for the clefting phenotype" says the study.
"i.e homosexuality is NOT genetic, homosexuality has NO genetic markers like real diseases, homosexuality is a behavioral disorder that is strictly environmental." concludes Clint N. Suhks.
Firstly, I could be bothered to ask (in theory) how a statement that both genes and environment play a role leads to your conclusion that the genes don't exist.
Secondly, I could point out that I've found no study, and you've offered none, showing 100% concordance on any conditions, re: identical twins. And I might point out that you were the one who claimed they exist.
Thirdly, I could point out that I've found no study, and you've offered none, showing that a third type of twin exists in anything other than the theoretical. Further, I'd have to wonder what the existance of such a third type would do to the twin studies involving homosexuality.
Then, of course, funding for the research seems to have come from governmental and charitable agencies, so I'd have to ask (again) what made you think it's commercially driven.
Instead, I'll just point you back to the conversation between realpatriot71 and RAT patrol.