The study found that genetically related people tend to be similar in their behavior, which tells us that sexuality has influences buried somewhere in the DNA.

no, it doesn't - because genetically related people tend to share conditioning as a consequence of being from similar, or the same, families. it baffles me that this assumption is still kicking around, all over the place. 

i've been clear for years that i think you want to look more to pavlov than mendel if you want to understand this, which isn't even to suggest "nurture", as though it's something that is taught. the plotline to gravity's rainbow is a kind of a twisted joke, but i actually think he got the right idea about it. the result is that sexuality occurs mostly by accident, mostly by chance.

but, at the end of the day, i also think there's a choice involved - and i do think we can control our conditioning if we want to, although i think it's immoral to enforce it.

they point out that people want to resist a genetic explanation because they don't want to be clinicized, and i think this is a valid point, but i'm ultimately more interested in what the truth of the matter is. the flip side of the debate is that people want to insist on biology as the answer so they can get around religious objections, but this is a bad argument because it shouldn't actually matter what religion says in the first place.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/opinion/genetics-sexual-orientation-study.html