You did not read the article in its entirety, did you? The author discusses this point.
I did. The article is more hypothesis about the possible occurrence of a “gay” gene as not in keeping with the persistently very small expression of “gay” sexuality in society, which, the author’s hypothesis suggests is ONLY possible with a developmental cause - because, the author’s premise is that even if some “gays” HAD married in the past, a “gay” gene still would have died out, due to having too small a place in gene pool to be sustained for very many generations.
Nonsense. If it were not nonsense, then dozens of other persistent but very minute-in-number-expressions of human characteristics would have “died out” long ago, due to lack of a critical mass in the gene pool to sustain/pass them on.
Again, I am not making an argument for a “gay” gene, but again find the rationale of the author’s argument is not convincing that there is not.