[Sabertooth]

I took it to mean that it is somehow astonishing that homosexuals originate from a male-female union.

Not astonishing, self-obvious.

What's astonishing is that some of the consequent conclusions from that fact are missed by so many who've pinned their hopes on the Golden Fleece of the so-called "gay gene."

Evolution would have dispensed with gay genes eons before the first lemurs, much less men.

[Condorman]

Evolution would have dispensed with gay genes eons before the first lemurs, much less men.

Your statement is factually inaccurate.

Evolution would have dispensed with cystic fibrosis as well, if your hypothesis were correct.

Unless you want to engage in some kind of pogrom, recessive alleles, even those that prevent reproduction, are permanent in the genetic population. Any claim that a gay gene would have been eliminated from the population by reproduction among heterosexual cannot be substantiated.

[Condorman]

some of the consequent conclusions from that fact are missed by so many who've pinned their hopes on the Golden Fleece of the so-called "gay gene."

I don't know what you mean by "pinned their hopes on" etc...

I did not claim that there is a genetic on/off toggle. To suggest otherwise is a strawman argument. I have simply pointed out that the possibility of a genetic influence for homosexuality cannot be eliminated.