I think we should point out here however that the results very much quite likely do not correspond to 25% of all gay men at large. No, this study dealt with gay siblings. If it's anything like the twin study, I expect it to apply to something around .07% of the gay population. In otherwords, this is no real explanation at all. A good read on all of the major genes=gay studies in the past is in a chapter of "What It Means To Be 98% Chimpanzee." In it, you will find in wonderful detail how even all of the studies combined only amount to a very, very, VERY small sliver of the gay population, so much so that it may well really be statistically insignificant.

Personally, I think all of this studies are flawed from the beginning: garbage in, garbage out. The labels of "gay" and "straight" are in fact SOCIAL constructs, with wide, wide, degrees of activity going on between them. A certain percent of the population is even asexual. Studies like these are akin to someone looking for the "Black" or "Asian" gene, race too being a SOCIAL construct, not a biological one.

In order for me to trust the result of any study at all, there needs to be a method to deal with the natural gradient of human sexual activity. I'm thinking something that states if a person is on a particular point on the bell curve for sexuality, then there maybe a few probabilities as to weither a few genes should show up.

And that's totally not considering the "other" epigenetic stuff.