Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Why did I choose to be gay? Oh that's right, you're a moron.

Whether it's nature vs nurture wouldn't matter. Either one, or a possiblility of the two results in homosexuality being natural.

Narture i.e. genetics.
If genetics plays a role, then homosexuality is natural.

Nurture i.e. social psychology. That means people naturally pick up on certain cues. Your brain processes perceived information.

Conclusion: As long as either natrure and/or nurture plays a role (which I believe they both do), then it's natural.

At 4/25/08 05:41 PM, n64kid wrote:

rofl nature+nurture=narture

Nature nature nature!

At 4/25/08 05:35 PM, Palomides wrote: Again with the stupid sentences of proposed knowledge superiority.

would you rather i write you a paper on how evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, the earth or life?

Yes as my definition, if you dont find that its incorrect then ill assume that Im right but right now all youre doing is giving short answers attempting to chip at my credibility.

religion:
a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law...The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

religion does not need to explain the creation of the universe or man, though most (if not all) do. evolution, even the entirety of science, does not fit that description.

At 4/25/08 05:38 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/25/08 05:22 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Reproductive fitness is "reproductivity".

If by "Reproductive Fitness", you mean 'The ability to Reproduce', then no.

Most organisms don't have consciousness, so the term reproductive fitness is just how much the organism does reproduce. Whether it's choice is relevant has nothing to do with it.

This might seem shocking to some people, but we see it a lot throughout nature. None of the workers in a bee hive themselves reproduce, yet their actions aid the hive and allow the queen to reproduce. Since the workers are genetically related to the queen, and the Queen survives based on the worker's success, the workers themselves are reproducing, even though they never engage each other sexually.

You're comparing the way one particular species is set up compared to us. It doesn't work.

That is how humans are set up. It's just much more subtle for us. Consider that a man who is a violent serial rapist might have a very

Likewise, if having homosexuals benefited a society, it's conceivable that they stay in the gene pool even if they themselves do not produce fertile offspring.

Key word: If

Since they remain in the gene pool, and have been in it for quite some time, we have two options:

1. Homosexuals reproduce just as much as everyone else
2. They compensate for their lower rates of reproduction by benefiting society's reproductive fitness

1) I made no mention of our species evolving towards homosexuality.

It's stayed about where it is as a minority in the population for quite some time.

2 As a result: I made no mention of evolution working to homosexuality's extinction.

Okay, but you suggested that it was evolutionarily disadvantageous.

It's conceivable that a rapist might have a very high reproductive ratio, but it wouldn't make sense to claim that their behavior is "desirable" or ethical.

Because it would be forcing oneself onto another.

Uh-huh.

Fair enough, but I'm just pointing out that it's not an undesirable trait from the standpoint of evolution, since it still exists.

Yes. It is undesirable.

How so?

As is any other genetic defect that evolution isn't capable of getting rid of.

What makes homosexuality a defect?

So what are you going to argue next? That Down Syndrome isn't undesirable because evolution hasn't "weeded it out"?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that homosexuality isn't a defect just because it reduces the amount of reproduction that a person does.

At 4/25/08 05:43 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

:would you rather i write you a paper on how evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, the earth or life?

religion:
a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law...The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

religion does not need to explain the creation of the universe or man, though most (if not all) do. evolution, even the entirety of science, does not fit that description.

Doesnt evolution include primitive microbes forming more complex life? So evolution does have to do with the formation of life.

"a set of beliefs" So you believe in evolution. "often centered upon specific supernatural" Microbes coming together to form gradual forms of more and more complex life.

"the cosmos" Most people who believe in evolution also believe in the big bang so theres youre formation of the universe.

"human nature" Genitics and evolution almost go hand in hand.

At 4/25/08 02:31 PM, Memorize wrote:

If you were to follow the natural means of evolution, homosexuality, though it occurs, would decrease the chances of reproduction. And last I checked, that falls into the relm of a negative/harmful mutation (if there is a 'gay gene').

How can you be so sure? Remember that evolution isn't only about the individual, it's just as much about the family/tribe/whatever. Maybe it won't benefit the homosexual individual, but having one person in the tribe that doesn't have to raise kids all the time may be beneficial in other ways. We don't know.

Also, homosexuality doesn't have to be a mutation in itself, it could be just a side effect of something else, that is clearly beneficial. My ability to eat ice cream can't have come due to evolution, since ice cream's only been around for some hundred year. It's a nice side effect of the mutations that made it possible for me to eat and drink other stuff, and to taste it (tasteless ice cream would be kinda pointless).

I'm not saying that homosexuality necessarily is something that is good for our evolution, I'm just saying that we don't know if it's bad or not.

Palomides,
Whether Evolution is right or wrong i don't discuss, but a theory must have few conditions in order to become the definition "Religion", terms which Evolution doesn't fill, argue as much as you want but this time you are wrong.

At 4/25/08 06:17 PM, zoolrule wrote: Palomides,
Whether Evolution is right or wrong i don't discuss, but a theory must have few conditions in order to become the definition "Religion", terms which Evolution doesn't fill, argue as much as you want but this time you are wrong.

Geez dont argue with me unless you supply REASONS, arguments like these lead nowhere.

At 4/25/08 06:21 PM, Palomides wrote: Geez dont argue with me unless you supply REASONS, arguments like these lead nowhere.

I believe you are intelligent enough to find them yourself, i'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. If you wont be able to find them, say it and i'll point them out for you, okay?

At 4/25/08 06:21 PM, Palomides wrote: Geez dont argue with me unless you supply REASONS, arguments like these lead nowhere.

One reason would be reason itself.

Religion is faith based, usually requiring worship, whereas evolution is based on reason and science. Just because you believe in evolution doesn't make it a religion.

Plus, playing semantics is never fun.

At 4/25/08 02:48 PM, Palomides wrote: Hmmm maybe we should start breeding humans so we have a super race of humans next? Everybody is filled with harmful genes so it really doesnt matter whether you consider this one bad or not.

You know who else had an Idea like this... oh what was his name?... oh yeah ADOLF HITLER!!!!!

At 4/25/08 06:47 PM, Gunman44 wrote: You know who else had an Idea like this... oh what was his name?... oh yeah ADOLF HITLER!!!!!

He was being sarcastic dude...

At 4/25/08 06:50 PM, zoolrule wrote:

At 4/25/08 06:47 PM, Gunman44 wrote: You know who else had an Idea like this... oh what was his name?... oh yeah ADOLF HITLER!!!!!

He was being sarcastic dude...

Sarcasm has no place in a respected community like newgrounds! >:(

At 4/25/08 03:34 PM, Palomides wrote: What do you mean wrong? Its a way of believing how the earth originated and not everyone believes it how is it not a religion?

Evolution is a scientific explanation of how life on Earth began and continuously changes. Calling it a religion is like calling law a religion. Evolution is a real force shaping life on earth.

Homosexuality is NOT a genetic defect. It is an evolutionary construct of sorts. What science currently understands is that homosexuals are born that way as a way to decrease or halt population growth in a given area. This has been documented in many higher life forms, such as mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Homosexuality IS natural and IS normal. Now to wait until some other person posts a similar topic, and starts the flame wars again.................

In addition rape is also an evolutionary construct. Although it is more evident in humans for a number of reasons. One, Males are generally larger and more muscular than females, and are able to force intercourse easier than many other species, where females are larger. Females being larger in other species may be a way to prevent rape. Rape also has a function. It enables genes that would not normally be passed on to be passed. However, these genes may be undesirable so this is, genetically, bad. Another thing that may cause rape to be more prevalent in humans is that our sentience has distanced us from many inherited instincts. I say this because, even in the rare cases where females are smaller than males in the animal world, when intercourse is rejected they do not attempt rape, so their possibly undesirable genes are not passed on by default. This may also occur as a result of a desirable male defending the female, thus, again, preventing rape.

I think neuroplasticity plays a huge role in this. The brain actually can turn on and off genes. Perhaps its just the wrong gene being 'turned on', due to being predisposed genetically or by environmental factors that trigger the 'turn on' of the gene. Either way it could be 'fixed' through pyschoanalysis.
The brain nicely adapts to its stimulii. For example a study showed that when people were brain-scanned, and blind-folded for a few days, and brain-scanned again, the visual cortex (because it did not receive any visual information) was taken over by the auditory cortex. And thats just in a few days!
I've heard so many anecdotal stories of how supposedly people now gay turned gay, usually it involves some sort of molestation at a young age or man pornography at a young age. And how coincidental that at around 8 and below is when the brain is most susceptible to change (most malleable if you will...)

Just a thought....

*eye rollie*

When will people learn that forcing Darwinistic ideas ontop of other principles such as economics and social living just DOESN'T work. Period.

But, if you're looking at that stupid view, then I play Devil's Advocate and propose that homosexuality is the MOST NATURAL thing and that it's something that's evolved in people.

Because, if we look at Darwinistic principals, all populations have mechenisms to MAINTAIN itself if it gets too big in order to sustain itself appropriately. We can see it through sickness, old age, and etc. So homosexuality, supposedly, keeps a population at bay.

HOWEVER, that's a very big "maybe". Because gay people do have biologically related children--albiet not with each other, but they have biological children either through sex or petri-dish. Orientation means nothing when it comes to reproduction... gay people are equiped for the "job."

Liking it or not is another matter...

At 4/25/08 06:21 PM, Palomides wrote:

Geez dont argue with me unless you supply REASONS, arguments like these lead nowhere.

Oh gawd. Im going to go off topic for second because this is making me a little bit annoyed at the level of ignorance here.

Evolution is a scientific THEORY about how life changes and adapts to survive. A theory in science is different then say a theory about something in everyday life. In science, something only becomes a theory after a crap load of evidence is given through experimentation and research, making it pretty damn credible. Though in science, things change, which is why it takes even more to make it a law.
But whether evolution exhists or not is not for debate here, so I'll stop now before I go into that.

But evolution is NOT a religion. Evolution does not explain how life was created. In fact, as far as I know, it doesn't even attempt to figure it out. It just exlains how life is able to continue in a changing world. It also doesn't try to explain the universe. I know many people who believe God created the universe, life, and then decided to create evolution as some type of automations system to life where he checks in to make sure everything is ok. Hmmm...like the portal...

To use an example that is less extreme....I believe Obama will be a better president than Clinton or McCain and will take the country into a new direction, or will at least start a new political movement. There are many people who do not think this, but this doesn't make it a religion.

Beliefs =/= religion

Back to the orginal topic.

I believe you are born gay or straight. Which means I think there is an evolutionary role with sexual orientation. In strict scientific terms, if gay couples were married the species would never carry on until they realized in order to continue on they were have to have sex with the opposite sex, which would probably lead to a more bi-sexual race of people than gay. Gay people are equipped for the job, and evolution would dicate the gay dude who realizes he has to fuck women would save his genetic pool from death.

In todays world this can happen the natural way, or through the petri dish. This has been stated. Also previously stated is the theory that maybe this is evolution's way of trying to control humans by having an increase in gay people, though then again this might be a social factor in that it is more acceptable now to come out than it ever has before.
Homosexuality might be a natural control to the human population. Most gay couples will probably never procreate naturally because they can't. Others might have sex just for the kid. But because humans are too smart for nature we can artificially enseminate and reproduce.

That question may never be answered. To do so you'd have to put 100 gay men and 100 lesbians on an island to live a natural wild life, and see if the population grows, or at least survives. Maybe it would turn into a bi-sexual or even heterosexual environment, meaning that homosexuality is just a quirk in the gene pool.

At 4/25/08 05:41 PM, n64kid wrote:

Whether it's nature vs nurture wouldn't matter. Either one, or a possiblility of the two results in homosexuality being natural.

Narture i.e. genetics.
If genetics plays a role, then homosexuality is natural.

If it has anything to do with genetics, then it could be a genetic defect or even a psychological disorder, or just some sort of abnormality.

But we don't know for a fact yet, so to simpley write it off as "normal" just because it involves genetics, is just plain dishonest.

Conclusion: As long as either natrure and/or nurture plays a role (which I believe they both do), then it's natural.

Do we consider genetic disorders as "natural" or "normal"? Most wouldn't. Yes. It happens, but they are not normal; they are not natural.

At 4/25/08 05:53 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Most organisms don't have consciousness, so the term reproductive fitness is just how much the organism does reproduce. Whether it's choice is relevant has nothing to do with it.

I'm speaking of the animal species.

But... exactly. If the 'trait/defect/abnormality' reduces a species reproduction, it is "harmful".

That is how humans are set up. It's just much more subtle for us. Consider that a man who is a violent serial rapist might have a very

And BECAUSE it's how we are set up, does that then make it natural for us?

Since they remain in the gene pool, and have been in it for quite some time, we have two options:

1. Homosexuals reproduce just as much as everyone else
2. They compensate for their lower rates of reproduction by benefiting society's reproductive fitness

How do they "reproduce as much as anyone else"?

I never said that they couldn't.

The ONLY way option 1 would work is if being "gay" is passed on from one generation to the next. But as anyone knows, it could go both ways. You can obtain a gay child from heterosexual parents, and you can obtain a straight child from homosexual parents.

Truth is, being a homosexual would then be just like anything else. It's not passed down, but it can occur, which is why they are still here. Because heterosexual couples can continue to produce children who or may not be gay.

But how would you measure option 2?

It's stayed about where it is as a minority in the population for quite some time.

As with any other genetic defect or psychological disorder.

They can happen to anyone, even for no reason whatsoever.

Okay, but you suggested that it was evolutionarily disadvantageous.

Yes, but not that people would evolve to a homosexual lifestyle.

But in a heterosexual species where offspring might become homosexual, which will then further the reproduction of the species "more"?

How so?

Because in a species with no critical thinking, it reduces the reproduction.

Of course, we as humans are capable, but the same rules apply because of how our species is set up.

What makes homosexuality a defect?

It "can" be.

If there is such a thing as a "gay gene", it would be the most likely scenario.

So what are you going to argue next? That Down Syndrome isn't undesirable because evolution hasn't "weeded it out"?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that homosexuality isn't a defect just because it reduces the amount of reproduction that a person does.

But if the "gay gene" is real and if it is the result of a genetic or psychological disorder, then it IS a defect.

At 4/25/08 06:02 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

How can you be so sure? Remember that evolution isn't only about the individual, it's just as much about the family/tribe/whatever. Maybe it won't benefit the homosexual individual, but having one person in the tribe that doesn't have to raise kids all the time may be beneficial in other ways. We don't know.

Exactly, you don't know.

And what you're doing is "stretching" it in that attempt to justify is to, once again, 'not hurt people's feelings'.

Also, homosexuality doesn't have to be a mutation in itself, it could be just a side effect of something else, that is clearly beneficial. My ability to eat ice cream can't have come due to evolution, since ice cream's only been around for some hundred year. It's a nice side effect of the mutations that made it possible for me to eat and drink other stuff, and to taste it (tasteless ice cream would be kinda pointless).

And what possible benefit does homosexuality bring to a heterosexual species?

To not have kids? But that goes against the species.

At 4/26/08 12:06 AM, dirtshake wrote:

At 4/25/08 06:21 PM, Palomides wrote:

Geez dont argue with me unless you supply REASONS, arguments like these lead nowhere.

Oh gawd. Im going to go off topic for second because this is making me a little bit annoyed at the level of ignorance here.

Evolution is a scientific THEORY about how life changes and adapts to survive. A theory in science is different then say a theory about something in everyday life. In science, something only becomes a theory after a crap load of evidence is given through experimentation and research, making it pretty damn credible. Though in science, things change, which is why it takes even more to make it a law.
But whether evolution exhists or not is not for debate here, so I'll stop now before I go into that.

But evolution is NOT a religion. Evolution does not explain how life was created. In fact, as far as I know, it doesn't even attempt to figure it out. It just exlains how life is able to continue in a changing world. It also doesn't try to explain the universe. I know many people who believe God created the universe, life, and then decided to create evolution as some type of automations system to life where he checks in to make sure everything is ok. Hmmm...like the portal...

To use an example that is less extreme....I believe Obama will be a better president than Clinton or McCain and will take the country into a new direction, or will at least start a new political movement. There are many people who do not think this, but this doesn't make it a religion.

"I know many people who believe God created the universe, life, and then decided to create evolution as some type of automations system to life where he checks in to make sure everything is ok. Hmmm...like the portal..."

The church doesnt think like that so that makes them seperate from christianity. Tell me of a church that runs that way.

"Evolution does not explain how life was created. In fact, as far as I know, it doesn't even attempt to figure it out"

Alright I see where this is going, youre only talking about biological evolution. Im talking about what most people see as evolution the big bang, then the earth forms from it, conditions are right for microbes to appear, more complex organism's begin to form. That to me is a religion on how it all began but I guess you would be right that evolution is seperate from the big bang theory but a lot of people put them together and make them a religion.

At 4/26/08 12:06 AM, dirtshake wrote:

At 4/25/08 06:21 PM, Palomides wrote:

Geez dont argue with me unless you supply REASONS, arguments like these lead nowhere.

Oh gawd. Im going to go off topic for second because this is making me a little bit annoyed at the level of ignorance here.

Evolution is a scientific THEORY about how life changes and adapts to survive. A theory in science is different then say a theory about something in everyday life. In science, something only becomes a theory after a crap load of evidence is given through experimentation and research, making it pretty damn credible. Though in science, things change, which is why it takes even more to make it a law.
But whether evolution exhists or not is not for debate here, so I'll stop now before I go into that.

But evolution is NOT a religion. Evolution does not explain how life was created. In fact, as far as I know, it doesn't even attempt to figure it out. It just exlains how life is able to continue in a changing world. It also doesn't try to explain the universe. I know many people who believe God created the universe, life, and then decided to create evolution as some type of automations system to life where he checks in to make sure everything is ok. Hmmm...like the portal...

To use an example that is less extreme....I believe Obama will be a better president than Clinton or McCain and will take the country into a new direction, or will at least start a new political movement. There are many people who do not think this, but this doesn't make it a religion.

"I know many people who believe God created the universe, life, and then decided to create evolution as some type of automations system to life where he checks in to make sure everything is ok. Hmmm...like the portal..."

The church doesnt think like that so that makes them seperate from christianity. Tell me of a church that runs that way.

"Evolution does not explain how life was created. In fact, as far as I know, it doesn't even attempt to figure it out"

Alright I see where this is going, youre only talking about biological evolution. Im talking about what most people see as evolution the big bang, then the earth forms from it, conditions are right for microbes to appear, more complex organism's begin to form. That to me is a religion on how it all began but I guess you would be right that evolution is seperate from the big bang theory but a lot of people put them together and make them a religion.

At 4/25/08 02:09 PM, Palomides wrote: Another thing, homosexuality has been around for thousands of years it just hasnt been accepted till now.

Homosexuality has been widely prevalent and accepted in both ancient Greece and Rome; a whole lot of good that all turned out.

At 4/25/08 02:25 PM, zoolrule wrote: Because it doesn't hurt anyone?

You mean like "recreational" drugs?

At 4/25/08 05:13 PM, kamil-fucker wrote: Gay people have different brains then straight people ( this is a fact ).
perhaps they just aren't meant to reproduce or they are a 'flaw' of nature.

Every person's brain has a certain 'something' different about it than the rest. What's your point?

At 4/25/08 05:41 PM, n64kid wrote: Conclusion: As long as either natrure and/or nurture plays a role (which I believe they both do), then it's natural.

So things such as 'pedophilia' and 'bestiality' are perfectly "natural" in your opinion?

Ignoring all the flaming going on in here, I'm gonna go ahead and give a link to a site with some interesting info that may help answer the original question that was asked.

clicky

I know I'm jumping in during a conversation, but fuck you guys.

First, homosexuality is a chemical unbalance in the brain, or the wrong hormone was introduced to the fetus. It's still up in the air what makes gay people gay, but those are the 2 most popular theories.

Second, you're assuming that gays can't reproduce. Just because you aren't attracted to someone doesn't mean that you can't reproduce with them. I know naturally they wouldn't be attracted to the opposite sex, but us humans have highly complex brains, compared to most, if not all animals, and being so smart, we have the ability to override some of natures devices. So a gay person can "take one for the team" and reproduce with the opposite sex; they still have all of the parts.

Evolution is a scientific THEORY about how life changes and adapts to survive. A theory in science is different then say a theory about something in everyday life. In science, something only becomes a theory after a crap load of evidence is given through experimentation and research, making it pretty damn credible. Though in science, things change, which is why it takes even more to make it a law.

Mostly accurate, one small mistake though. A theory can never become a law. A law is a simple fact, like when you throw something up, it comes down. That's the law of gravity. The theory of gravity attempts to explain why what goes up comes down, and incorporates many laws. There is no higher scientific explanation than a theory. Which is why I never really understood people who say evolution is not a science, it's a theory.

At 4/25/08 01:42 PM, TitusRevised wrote: I don't know if this has been discussed already (I tried searching but didnt find anything) so I apologize if this is something old.

My question being, why is homosexuality accepted as normal when it is unnatural?

Natural selection says that only those most capable of producing healthy offspring are the 'fittest' and thus the most fit will keep their genes in the gene pool while those infertile or simply too unhealthy to produce offspring will die and their genes weeded out. Should sexual orientation be genetic, then shouldn't homosexuals be the arch-enemy of natural selection, and be completely eradicated by millions of years of evolution?

It seems in nature that the whole purpose of living is to produce offspring that will survive, and homosexuals are incapable of producing offspring naturally and thus their behavior is un-natural. Why then are people being pushed to accept it as normal? Perhaps a clever way of keeping world population undercontrol... Anywho, what do you have to retort?

Well, I for one do not believe in Evolution, I think is is a crappy theory with tons of flaws in it whereas things like religion explain it alot better and have actual scientific evidence, if you don't believe me then go see for yourself.
Anyway, the fact is that we are not animals, we did not evolve from apes and thats that, we are human beings and have our own thoughts, feeling, emotions and most importantly free will.
Gayness may be a gene or whatever but genes certaintly do not decide a person's life, a genetically fat person could be a star athlete n tons of other examples.

The fact that the human spirit is what decides what is alot more believable than things like people killing because their parents did it, or they're gay because their parents were, it is up to the person and them alone.

At 4/26/08 02:08 AM, SirBackBoobs wrote: Mostly accurate, one small mistake though. A theory can never become a law. A law is a simple fact, like when you throw something up, it comes down. That's the law of gravity. The theory of gravity attempts to explain why what goes up comes down, and incorporates many laws. There is no higher scientific explanation than a theory. Which is why I never really understood people who say evolution is not a science, it's a theory.

err....
scientific theory can become scientific fact... only once it has been proven as fact.

Law of Gravity was once a scientific theory, remember.

At 4/26/08 02:11 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Well, I for one do not believe in Evolution, I think is is a crappy theory with tons of flaws in it whereas things like religion explain it alot better and have actual scientific evidence, if you don't believe me then go see for yourself.
Anyway, the fact is that we are not animals, we did not evolve from apes and thats that, we are human beings and have our own thoughts, feeling, emotions and most importantly free will.
Gayness may be a gene or whatever but genes certaintly do not decide a person's life, a genetically fat person could be a star athlete n tons of other examples.

The fact that the human spirit is what decides what is alot more believable than things like people killing because their parents did it, or they're gay because their parents were, it is up to the person and them alone.

Interesting.

You know, I was wondering if you had an account over at Fark. There is this guy there with the name Shaggy_C, but now I realize that you're obviously not the same guy, because you're pretty much polar opposites. Because, y'know, he's intelligent, and you're a creationist.

At 4/26/08 02:04 AM, TheThing wrote:

Second, you're assuming that gays can't reproduce. Just because you aren't attracted to someone doesn't mean that you can't reproduce with them. I know naturally they wouldn't be attracted to the opposite sex, but us humans have highly complex brains, compared to most, if not all animals, and being so smart, we have the ability to override some of natures devices. So a gay person can "take one for the team" and reproduce with the opposite sex; they still have all of the parts.

That makes the most sense to me- however homosexuality manifests itself in a persons mind (genetic or otherwise) there is nothing to say they can't reproduce. In fact after millenia of intolerance towards homosexuals, the vast majority almost certainly continued with a sham marriage/relationship and continued to reproduce to avoid being persecuted by society.

If genetic that would certainly allow a continuation of the genes, as would other examples here such as a possible mechanism to reduce population, or a chemical imbalance in the brain caused by trauma etc at a young age, or the gene being linked to beneficial genes (as one extremely good post said on the first page, and that is a mechanism that allows a lot of other negative mutations to persist in populations). All good reasons for homosexuality to persist.