[quote=@mdk]
5. In this specific case, does it make sense? I mean..... we're talking about a gene that would prevent reproduction, up until the late 90s. how many billions of years of evolution does it theoretically take for that to select itself right out of the pool? If that's truly the only factor, then gay people only exist because for [i]literally billions of years[/i], social pressures have bullied them into screwing the opposite sex. I don't buy that. 
[/quote]

[quote=@Rae Zer]
If Homosexuality was a gene, I don't think I would exist at all. It would be a gene which, in the eyes of natural selection, is completely useless. A man and a woman can have a child but a man and a man can't unless it is adopted. For natural selection, the idea of keeping a gene like homosexuality simply would have been worthless. 
[/quote]

If we assume that genetics have something to do with homosexuality, i say we must get rid of the notion of there being genes that make you attracted to the opposite or to the same sex. Rather, in my opinion, it would be much more likely for there to be genes causing attraction to women, which are prevalent in men, and genes that cause an attraction to men, which are prevalent in women. 

In other words, rather than having "if you are X, then you are attracted to Y" genes, which would be attraction to the opposite sex, it is simply "you are attracted to Y", or "you are attracted to X", regardless of the host's gender. Then it all makes sense, as the genes causing homosexuality will be in abundance within the opposite sex.