Irrelevant to the science -- please actually read what I posted.
f2003b, your tone seems antagonistic, without cause.
That said, I did read your post last evening. My post was directly relevant and responsive to these clauses from your post (whose entirety I quoted):
Why it crops up at all is probably an interesting path of investigation, but that path would more than likely lead to the discovery of a gay gene that could be screened for (as Downs' is now) ...
The latter of the two clauses suggest that such a "gay gene" would be regarded as an abnormality. I pointed out that there already is such a study that claims to prove being gay is genetic, and that homosexuals and their advocates use that study to "prove" that being gay is genetic and therefore a form of normal.
I thought that information, if you were unaware of it, might be interesting to you. Evidently not.