[supercat]

By the principles of genetics, exclusively homosexual practitioners would appear in the population at no greater rate than that of genetic disorders that prevent their victims from procreating e.g., Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria syndrome. This rate is far lower than the currently observed/reported homosexual proportion of the population.

Not necessarily true. Suppose that a particular gene were to cause carriers, whether male or female, to be particularly strongly attracted to men. Such a gene might reduce the reproductive success rate of male carriers, but increase the success rate of female carriers. If the latter effect counterbalanced the former, the gene could be passed on indefinitely through generations. If the 'enhancement' effect of the gene on females was reduced at higher concentrations(*) it could achieve a stable concentration in society.

(*)The gene might make females compete more effectively for certain mates, but if too many females carried it they would crowd each other out, thus losing their advantage.

[Lucky Dog]

Suppose that a particular gene…

Let’s just look at facts and logic rather than supposition.

Do you find anything that is not a fact or is a logical fallacy in the following statement?

Homosexual individuals are incapable of reproduction if they are exclusively homosexual. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively homosexual activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be homosexual.)

All of the suppositions you propose could be applied to the disease I cited (Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria syndrome). Yet there is not the proportion of those disease sufferers in the population to match homosexual behavior practitioners, is there? Your assertion fails the test of logic.