You changed the subject.
Here is what you said:
Unruh and Byrd to say there is no genetic component. Such a statement is just as unscientific and unjustified as the "genetics only" crowd on the other side of the coin.and now you're saying:
What else would they mean when they say "there is no gay gene?"A genetic component is not a gene so don't equate the two.
Perhaps Unruh and Byrd are more familar with the subject than you realize.
Nope. You're just defending a stupid statement.