While I firmly believe that sexuality (and that includes heterosexuality -why does no-one ever research that?) is a very complex thing that's based on a LOT of things, though mostly nature, what this programme mostly confirmed to me is that there is no "proof" of anything at the moment. But then again, I knew that. We only know that there are biological differences in gay and straight men (little research has been done on lesbians, as usual), which points us to a more "biological" direction. But that's it.

Is there a gay gene? No. There isn't. Because if there was, identical twins would either both be gay or both be straight, and that's not the case. There is a higher incidence of both twins being gay than there would be between two brothers (I think it's something of just over 50% chance), but it's not absolute 100%, which it would have to be for sexuality to be purely genetic.

The finger thing... well, if 6 out of 10 gay men have more feminine hands it shows that 4 out of 10 don't. If there are two "kinds" of hands to have you have a chance of 1 in 2 for either male of female hands. And I didn't hear them say that 9 or 10 out of 10 straight men had "male" hands. Unless they do, the results seem pretty irrelevant.

There seems to be a kinda "wahey! Proof at last! Proof at last!" thingie (not in the least due to John Barrowman's own insistence) going on and I don't really get it. Maybe because I knew of the research and theories that were mentioned in the programme?
Still... while I'm also glad there's at least a biological component, even if there weren't it shouldn't have to make a difference. Even if people chose to be gay (and maybe some of us do, who knows), it shouldn't matter. Everyone lives their lives the way they want to. As long as they don't harm anyone, just let them be.