What? You still don't get it :p:

Imagine that a mother has a gene that makes her super-fertile. She has more children than other mothers because of this. The gene also causes her sons to become homosexuals so they don't add to this fertility-gene's fitness because they don't have children. However, her daughters who inherit the gene do not become homosexuals. Instead, they become super-fertile just like their mother and so have more children than women who don't have the gene.

That's the basic principle behind the idea. Do you get it now?

Some of them are indeed caused by problems in the creation process of new gametes and so on, but actually lots of genetic diseases do have fitness benefits under the right circumstances. The most famous example is sickle-cell disease. Being a genetic carrier of the disease protects against malaria :

edit :

And cystic fybrosis has been hypothesized to protect against cholera :

^ Can these highly fertile females be lezzies still ?

I haven't actually read more than the title and the abstract so I don't know how these mothers of homosexuals have higher fecundity - if it's their physiology for example or if they are better at finding partners or more fond of sex (just a way of saying I dunno). All I've read is that fecundity is increased. If being a lesbian lowers fecundity, then I guess that would counter the results found so my guess is that this genetic component has little to do with "lesbianism", but more to do with male homosexuality.

So no idea from where these females come from?
-Baffling.

Putting your homosexual desires into action is a lifestyle choice, having them isn't, really.

While homosexuality is genetic, bigoted people still get it wrong. Homosexuality can be caused by many things but some people wrongly think it's always hormonal imbalance. It does have a strong connection to transgenderism I think. But a lot of homosexuals are manly as f*ck, and lesbian women can still be very feminine.

But unfortunately it's still common practice to assume that men who are "feminine" must be homosexuals and that women who are "masculine" must be homosexual also.

I've had gay rumors spread about me before and that will probably never go away even though I'm a hetero 4lyfe. But I pee sitting down so I must be gay. :rolleyes:

Where lesbians come from? I don't know (nor am I up to date on this), but there are plenty of hypotheses out there that could potentially explain homosexuality in both genders.

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit :

I think the most common idea is that homosexuality or rather the genetics that cause it provide fitness benefits in people who are heterosexual or at least reproduce more or less normally with people of the opposite sex. That's just a basis for a number of hypotheses though and there are others as well that do not rely on this as the basic principle.

Tore, even if that theory proved credible, which it possibly could, it still proves nothing for the argument of homosexuality being natural. In fact, you made it seem more like a side-effect, than anything.

Because if it were true, then the fertility of women would increase, resulting in increase of homosexual males, which again would be counterproductive to darwinian success. There would be less males to produce offspring with, less genetic variation and if it kept going, ultimately extinction.

Edit:
Booboo why would you possible want to piss sitting down... o_o

Too heavy to lift and aim.

I think you can go to physical therapy for that...

Of course not. As with the fish, the efficiency of a strategy depends on the environment.

Imagine that the whole world is full of women and gay people who refuse to have sex with them. What do you think the fitness would be of the one heterosexual male in that population? ;) Unless he was a hideous monster, it would likely be quite high and his heterosexual male children would thrive in such a world. Remember that a strategy that does well when a few does it may not be good when the majority does it. It's efficiency depends on the environment - which changes.

You are applying your idea of evolution to a whole species, talking about the "darwinian success" of homo sapiens and homosexuality. You can't do that, at least not without a solid educated foundation in evolution. It makes more sense to talk about the fitness of f.ex a specific gene in a specific environment. As that gene as well as others increase or decrease in the human population, the environment that gene is evolving in changes and, in response, so does it's effect on fitness.