If it - “gay” - were genetic, then studies of identical twins (100% same genes) would show a greater proportion of “gays” among idnentical twins than the proportion of “gays” in the general population. But studies of identical twins do not show that when when “gays” are found among identical twins that both of the individuals are found to be “gay” in any greater proportion than found in the population in general. For a genetic factor to be a dominant factor science would expect that if one individual in a set of identical twins was “gay” that the other one would most likely be “gay” also. But, in fact that circumstance is not greater than in the population in general. So, is there a “gay gene” from birth? Science says not.
‘So, is there a “gay gene” from birth? Science says not.’
If being gay is genetic, then how is that genetic abnormality passed on? Did cavemen have turkey basters??
The studies you are talking about were conducted out of New Zealand as well. Hardly a right wing think tank. Homosexuality is not genetic.
It may have to do with each unborn child’s exposures to ? Hormones or something, maybe even plastics, and even twins may have different exposures. Thus not purely genetic but epigenetic.
There is some evidence, for example, that the more male children a woman has carried in her womb, the greater a chance of the next male baby to be homosexual. Thus more third and fourth sons would be gay than first and second, to women who had three or four sons.