The Dude wrote:I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before, Rambo.
A gene could exist that makes an individual more attracted to male partners. In men, this would tend to cause homosexuality. But in females, the same gene would increase reproductive sex and passage of the gene. Thus, the gene would be more or less stable in the population. Remember that GENES are selected by natural selection, not "gay" or "straight" PEOPLE.
I think this thread would be more to the point in some respects if people paid careful attention to The Dude's post, which is written by someone with professional knowledge of the field of genetics.
It would not matter at all from the point of view of the hypothetical 'gay man gene' if, to take an extreme case, no man with the gene ever had any children, so long as the gain in reproductive success (and hence success in passing on the gene) by their gene-carrying sisters was large enough to counterbalance the failure of their brothers to have children.
In reality the situation would not be so extreme: men carrying the 'gay man gene' described by The Dude would lose something by way of reproductive success, and their sisters would gain something. Whether or not the gene continued in the population would depend on the balance between the two.