>Read the article again, you will see that statistical observations have been made. Such as the chance of homosexuality is greater when there is in the family line suggesting that it is somewhere in the X-chromosome. Another statistical observation is that with younger siblings have a greater chance of developing homosexuality. Perhaps most convincing is that over 50% of identical twins where at least one was homosexual, the other was as well, while for non-identical twins this was only 22%. This point strongly to genetics, while the 22% for non-identical twins indicate that there must be another component (like hormones).
>
>Anyways, the scientific world generally assumes that ones sexual orientation is mainly determined before birth.
>
>From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation
>
>Sexual preference may also suggest a degree of voluntary choice,[9][11][12] whereas the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice.[13][14][15]
>
>You of course are free to choose to criticize Wikipedia on the subject.

Why I would criticize Wikipedia when it is aligned with what I said :P

Genes may be related to the development of sexual orientation. At one time, studies of twins appeared to point to a major genetic component, but problems in experimental design of the available studies have made their interpretation difficult, and one recent study appears to exclude genes as a major factor.

But notice what I already said: lots uncertain or limiting qualifiers for scientific proof everywhere in those articles including your quotation, how scientific would I be if I say that 1 + 1 may be 2 or that the scientific world assumes that 1 + 1 is mainly 2?

Anyways, I am out as I need to figure out how can I parse a binary file and write 2+ million records into SQL in less that 30 minutes, currently the process takes a full hour, so I better stop writing nonsense here and start thinking...