That's the point. It was talking about a genetic advantage. There were no children, so they didn't pass anything along.
What do you think? Wouldn't any financial advantage a homosexual uncle might have passed on to a heterosexual niece, for example, have to be be seen from the standpoint that that niece would likely have reproduced anyway?
Even with a homosexual near relative, the odds of the mythical “gay gene” being passed to the next generation is reduced...so the argument is the same, that the gene self-selects for extinction, just more slowly (since, presumably, the niece or nephew of the gay person would be a potential carrier). I’m not buying that, though, because “self-selecting for extinction” is so completely counter to the whole idea of genetic science that it makes no sense...and, again, how would such a gene evolve in the first place?
Regarding SOME propagation of the mythical “gay gene,” this was/is possible where a gay person gets married due to societal pressures. Either there will be no kids because the person is firmly homosexual (no pun intended, kids), or there are less (1 or 2, vs. 3 or more) because some of the sexual energy of the gay person is expended upon people of the same gender who simply cannot reproduce. Either way - no propagation or less propagation - the mythical “gay gene” goes extinct after X number of generations, because it MUST do so - the math demands that this be so.
As a result, THERE IS SIMPLY NO WAY THAT THERE IS A “GAY GENE” (or a complex of them). This is behavior, folks, no two ways about it.