Replies

if there were a genetic contribution to homosexuality, why is it not EXTINCT by now? By definition homosexuality reduces the rate at which homosexuals have children.

Because of the social pressure to get married to the opposite sex mentioned above. Homosexuals who can function for a period of childbearing years in conventional marriages can still be promiscuous with men on the down-low; or divorce and be exclusively homo after having the kids. The rate of bisexuality for women is even higher than for men. Remember, it is not an on-off switch. It is an addiction to a certain type of sexual practice; but that doesn't make the other practices impossible, especially if their purpose suits an agenda of "fitting in" in society, congregation or business.

"Because of the social pressure to get married to the opposite sex mentioned above.

But regardless of being married, the definition of homosexuality is reduced or no interest in sex with the opposite sex -- reproductive sex.

Without the social pressure to get married, a homosexual gene would be extinct in only 1, 2, or 3 generations.

With the social pressure to get married in a straight marriage,

1) Homosexuality would ONLY persist in societies that had the social pressure to marry.

2) Societies where there was no social pressure would have no homosexuals today. All homosexuals would be extinct in those cultures.

3) In societies with a social pressure to marry, anyone carrying a homosexuality gene would have FEWER children than normal -- in periods of history of high mortality rate for infants, children, and adults -- and homosexuality would be extinct in maybe 500 to 1,000 years.

Since we hear references to homosexuality 3,000 to 3,500 years ago, today there should be no homosexuals anywhere on planet Earth... if there were a genetic basis for it.