It seems to naturally follow that any gene that trends toward non-reproduction would eventually be depleted from the genome after some number of generations. Certainly after millions of generations.
Like... if there was a sterility gene. Seems that over time it would be less and less likely to pass itself to new generations.
That assumption works on the condition that homosexuals are allowed to vanish out of the gene pool. However, until recently, many married and maintained heterosexual relationships, reproducing, even, before coming out. This would be more relevant in stigmatising societies.
Exactly.
I’ve always struggled buying the statement that it was genetic. It seems to be in direct contradiction with Darwinian law. Not being able to pass your genetic material over time is a genetic death sentence; no matter how strong, intelligent, or fast you are. Even if it was genetic, one would think that the carriers of it would have died out over time, because it is so useless to the evolution of the species. Just like tails are to us now.
That is of course, if the theory of evolution is true. I’m just pointing out the contradiction in logic.
Suppose there were a gene which reduced the reproductive success rate of male carriers to zero, but quadrupled the reproductive success rate of female carriers. Would the fact that the reproductive success rate of male carriers was dropped to zero cause the gene to die out of succeeding generations?
Personally, I very much doubt that there is a gay gene, but would think it likely that some generic factors affect the extent to which people are attracted to males, and other genetic factors affect the extent to which people are attracted to females. If males that have a stronger-than-normal attraction to females mate with females that have a stronger-than-normal attraction to males, then even if half of the children have the wrong 'unusually-strong attraction' gene for their sex (and are thus less likely to reproduce), the union may produce enough children to have a higher net reproductive success rate than would unions of people with "normal" levels of attraction.
On the other hand, even if homosexuality is in some measure genetic, so what? There are probably genetic factors that cause people to be unusually strongly attracted to children, but that even if someone is a pedophile because of genetics, that doesn't mean the person shouldn't be prosecuted if he acts upon those pedophile tendencies and becomes a child molester.