[scripter]

You're changing the subject again and now using misdirection.

I asked you to support your statement in post 60 and you haven't. Here is what you said:

Unruh and Byrd to say there is no genetic component.

Again I ask: Where do you see Unruh and Byrd saying there is no genetic component?

[r9etb]

What part of "no gay gene" do you not understand? For there to be a genetic component at all ... there's got to be a gene.

To say there is "no gay gene" says that homosexuality has no genetic component. It cannot be otherwise.

This is simple stuff, FRiend. Mr. Unruh and Dr. Byrd are saying something quite direct. You seem to want to avoid that. Why?