Ok, slamming the article/website won't make its points any less valid. Quoted from the article:
Quote:
Science (the magazine) revisited the topic this year, publishing two articles questioning supposed links to a gay gene. Both articles reference an independent genetic study conducted in Canada in 1989 with research continuing today by four researchers from the University of Western Ontario and Stanford Medical School. This study used 52 pairs of gay siblings from 48 families æHamer??s research used 40 homosexual brother pairs. The study concluded, ??It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer??s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28.?
Quote:
What can we conclude about the biology of homosexuality? Consider a comprehensive review article, ??Human Sexual Orientation: The Biological Theories Reappraised,? written by William Byne and Bruce Parsons from Columbia University in 1993.
The article reviews 135 research studies, prior reviews, academic summaries, books, and chapters of books??in essence the entire literature on homosexuality, of which only a small portion is actual research. The abstract summarized in its findings that there is no evidence at present to substantiate that biological factors are the primary basis for sexual orientation.
Whatever genetic contribution to homosexuality exists, it probably contributes not to homosexuality per se, but rather to some other trait that makes the homosexual ??option? more readily available to some than others.
So if y'all have any scientific proof THAT IS VALID, please provide it.
The point is this: if homosexuality isn't genetic, then marriage is out of the question. The government should not allow marriage based on a deviant behavior. 
