[evad]

>>They are talking about traits, also referred to as gifts.<<

I understand, but this part of his opening to the article is critical. Traits are inherited.

>>Some of these traits might be inherited (genetic), while others might have been caused by the "intrauterine environment" (hormones). <<

This part of his opening to the article is super critical, at least it is to me.

>>What this means is that a youngster without these traits will be somewhat less likely to become homosexual later than someone with them<<

What can be more clear than certain people with certain traits (gifts), maybe with a higher degree of these traits than usual, will be more likely to be homosexual later than someone without them, or as he specifically states, a youngster without these traits will be somewhat less likely to become homosexual.

Now, I understand that the general thrust of his entire article is toward the behavioral side and how this behavior can be "modified". But I can't ignore his opening statements regarding genetic traits and their predisposition to homosexuality.

[scripter]

This part of his opening to the article is super critical, at least it is to me.

A lot of folks have read that article and commented on it, but none pulled that statement out of it's context. I don't know your reasons for concentrating on that one statement when the context and the rest of the article does not support your position.

We're talking about traits in point 1 of the article. The author ends point 1 with:

In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself directly inherited.

When read in context, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality (behavior) is itself directly related to the inherited traits he was just talking about. For some reason you're pulling one statement out of context and ignoring the last statement of point 1.

I can't ignore his opening statements regarding genetic traits and their predisposition to homosexuality.

But you can ignore context? Regarding the traits, there is no predisposition. He doesn't use that word nor that thought. He mentions common features. He said there is absolutely no evidence whatsover homosexuality (behavior) is directly related to the traits. If you can't see this then there's little else I can say.

The rest of the article is written along these same lines. It almost seems as if you read point 1 of the article, skippped the last line of point 1 and concentrated on the one line you think supports your statement. If we ignore context we can believe just about anything we want and support our bias no matter what the articles original intent was. For me I'll stay consistent and read the article in context.