[yourmaster]

Quote by: Winter wind This isn't a genetic component. It is a chemical component.

Pardon?

becomes male if the male-determining gene known as SRY is present. This dominant gene

Quote by: Winter wind But regardless of the reason, it's obvious that birth order is a huge component. The more older brothers (doesn't matter if they grow up with the younger child or not), the more likely the next brother is gay.

This article fails to cite any figures and fails to provide any citation at all apart from "studies done by ____", even when it does cite like this it fails to provide any follow up clarification, gives no sources to the original works it is basing the article upon. Moral of the story, don't use newspapers as citation in anything, chances are it was written by some journalist with no qualifications above A-Level in science and the writer has been given some 30 second explanation about what he/she is writing about.

Quote by: Winter wind This isn't really an argument for your side, but a biter analyzes of scientific...what's the word...hackery. It outlines the basis of the stereotype of homosexuals and how pathetic the reasons behind this concept were. It's an argument for my side more then anything.

You will find if you read the whole paper it is somewhat different, the beginning laughs at the idea of homosexuality being a mental illness, nearer the end the writer states that currently there is evidence of femminity in male homosexuals and masculinity in female homosexuals.
This is most likely caused by environmental factors, though this does not neccessarily mean it is a cause, it does insinuate a correlation between environmental factors that cause gender miscalculation and homosexuality.

Quote by: Winter wind Is there any data on heterosexual relationships and not just marriage? (because otherwise the data is asymmetrical)

I would have thought that marriage is a good enough indicator of relationship strength. I will find you citation and all that, but like you I don't have abundances of free time and have to rush this just to get it all done, so I apologise for that.

Quote by: Winter wind Aside from the debate for a second, I've heard arguments against it as well. An increase in children out of wedlock and stuff like that. So if you could post a source that disproves this, I would really appreciate it (It makes good light reading...haha). Oh and even if it did, I almost could care less. The one child born out of wedlock I know was raised by an unusual, but incredibly loving mother (hippie but not really). The child is a freaking genius and a very nice person.

No, of course being born and raised out of wedlock does not mean that the child will be a bad child or an unintelligent child, but it does not disprove a correlation, just because the correlation is not 1:1 does not mean it does not exist, I am saying that being raised out of wedlock increases the chances of children being rebellious or depressive, no one denies that being raised in a stable married family is the most beneficial.