[LtdGovt]

Indeed, I did not read them myself, I don't spend all my time on a single subject, but I have some nice books in which major research in psychology is summarized.

In both studies Bailey and Pillard advertised in homosexual publications and then had those who responded recruit their friends. Whoops.

They should have asked their local church to recruit test subjects? /s

Besides that, their study on twins doesn't support your claim that genes play a huge role in homosexuality,

A .5 correlation is called a huge role.

[scripter]

They should have pulled from many sources. I'm sure you see the problems with their study but in case others aren't sure what the problem is, I'll explain.

Imagine Bailey and Pillard grabbed a rock and went to the top of a mountain. They slowly rolled the rock through the snow until they had a 20 foot snowball. At this point they told everybody: "Hey, look at this evidence we've gathered." And everybody, assuming the snowball contained some substance, accepted their evidence at face value.

But in time the snowball melted and Bailey and Pillard were left holding the same rock with which they started, and that rock is just a rock, nothing more.

That's why the Gladue quote I provided earlier is so appropriate: "If research is buried it will only come back to bite us later."

A .5 correlation is called a huge role.

Think about that rock. Besides that, Bailey and Pillard would disagree with you that genes play a huge role.