I disputed this in another comment. Please see that comment.

1.) Newspapers do not constitute scientific evidence sources

2.) Kinsey is not a respected source of science and this evidence may already be disproved.

Again, you assume that this has any baring on the biological matter. Even the article itself says its making assumptions about hair whorl and fingerprints.

Its about as serious as the discredited science of physiognomy. As far as i can tell, these cover exactly the same subject areas.

The real flaw in your reasoning seems to be that gays are more of everything if you tested the colour of the light reflecting off of them youd probably say you found they were more Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet, grey black ultraviolet, infrared and several radio stations.

This could easily be a contributing factor to these men becoming gay, they are smaller, they could even feel impotent compared to other men and this could push them to being gay.

1.) No journalistic article is evidence.

Ok, now that we've got that out the way. I will use a source from the same bbc news. So our credibility will be equal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16086233

However there is a clear hierarchy as to this information. "Brain Plasticity" is a well known concept which explains that when repeating and learing a task that part of the brain shows growth. This explains the reason for the brain differences in gays and proves its much more likely to be brain plasticity than an inherited change. In conclusion, this proves that it is conditioning which re-enforces gayness.

This view is corroborated by 2 scientific papers i know of which prove that gays can convert back to normal sexuality. See;

Spitzer, Robert L. (2003), “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32[5]:403-417, October 5.

It is well known that the terms homosexual and heterosexual are new labeling terms which were created even though the scientific evidence proving their existence is still being gathered and not concluded, even though it is still very much looking like gayness is a mental illness or some form of brain damage.

Levay has been discredited most completely for the following reasons.

1.) He set out to prove gayness was normal from the beginning which biased his scientific conclusion.

2.) He only tested 13 gay men

3.) He only tested men, not women

4.) He neglected to point out that all 13 of them died of AIDS which is known to cause changes in hormones and the brain.

5.) He had no control group, to wit, he did not test straight men. This is such a cardinal sin, that its almost impossible to contemplate this man thinks himself a scientist.

6.) The difference in brain size only appeared as a mean of the entire group. That is, if i took 13 people and 1 elephant and took a mean, i could say that everyone has a nose 8 inches long

You should take note, because the majority of every pro-gay scientific paper, has these same flaws.

Worse still, and almost unforgivably, the meta studies on gays take into account ALL of these discredited sources. None of these where ever proper science, untill the media got ahold of them. Which is misinformation on a scale similar to psychological warfare. Especially given that my prior comment proved that gayness can be brought on with conditioning.

Hey, now your really reaching.

Ive read your source and it says

"The metabolic differences we observed might reflect underlying neurochemical differences between homosexual and heterosexual men."

That doesn't mean its natural or biological to be gay. Indeed it lends more weight to the fact that the brain chemistry is the area which determines the difference.

Your evidence does not prove the conclusion.

This does not prove the argument that it is a natural, inhereted characteristic. Merely that it exists.

Finger length has nothing to do with anything. There is no known process whereby it would.

Also, your source isnt about finger length. Its about auditory system. It specifically says:

"assuming that these special populations received greater-than-normal exposures to androgens at some point(s) during development, possibly during prenatal development."

It makes the assumption that this is due to prenatal development, but again it can easily be explained by 'neuro plasticity' as i said earlier. And that involves a process which we understand. No one knows a mechanism for the womb emasculating the wrong parts of the brain.

Here the pro-gay lobby group, deliberately uses and assumption to lead to a less credible theory. The most credible theory being ignored because it is inconvenient. Assumptions have no place in scientific papers.

How could this possibly -ever- have any real meaning or importance? For all we know this is again about neuro plasticity and conditioning.

Once again, your evidence is unbelievable.

1.) First of all, spatial memory was found to be the same for lesbians and normal women.

The only group which was different was gay and straight men, and unsurprisingly the women were forgotten about pretty quickly in the conclusion.

2.) Spatial memory can STILL be explained by neuro plasticity, just like just about every other claim youve found. It seems people want to assume these means a gay gene, or biological difference.

3.) There is absolutely no reason to believe that spatial memory can effect and change someones sexuality. Indeed this is a medical paper called "sexual orientation related differences" Once again this science has proved nothing more than people are able to change and condition themselves through repetition.