This was the report I remember seeing, and the main reason I have no problem discussing homosexuality as recreational and cultural and adjunct to normal sexuality, (a thing no-one understands fully, after all anyway), and it would seem statistically reasonable to me to put homosexuality along the standard bell curve of human sexual response, just along one of the small sides, not to differentiate it to the degree queer pride groups tend to do- as typical special interest organizations are wont....
Normal distribution. How's that for a thought? Makes the taboo more interesting, IMHO....
Much more interesting, memetically, is the taboo on incest.
WASHINGTON
(April 22, 1999 3:04 p.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com)
"These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality," lead author George Rice, a professor at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, said in Science.
In 1993, NCI researcher Dean Hamer who studied 40 pairs of homosexual brothers found that one or several genes transmitted by the mother and situated in the Xq28 chromosome strongly influenced who develops the trait.
However, Rice and his three colleagues examined 52 pairs of homosexual brothers for the presence of four markers in the chromosome region and said the brothers "were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance."
With their data, the Canadian researchers said they could "exclude the possibility of any gene in Xq28 with a major genetic influence" on homosexuality.
However, Rice said the "search for genetic factors in homosexuality should continue" and added they were "looking for a link on other chromosomes."
Even so, he stated taken together the results of different studies "would suggest that if there is a (genetic) linkage, it's so weak that it's not important."
Unpublished data from professor Alan Sanders at the University of Chicago also does not support the theory of a genetic link for homosexuality, a Science editorial said.