On the causes of sexual orientation

Would not everything you have said also apply to anyone else who remains childless? Regardless of sexual orientation?Those who have fertility issues, those who remain single and childless out of choice and even those heterosexual couples who are perfectly capable of having children but who choose to use contraception to remain childless.If there is a genetic factor to any of these personal choices or physical limitations should these people not be categorised, if you are going to insist on categorising people in reproductive terms, into the same group as homosexuals?Your natural selection argument would seem to apply equally to all of those categories of people as it would homosexuals. No?As a social and cultural animal isn't the offspring argument you put forward overly narrow. Newton remained childless. Do we really think that his contribution to the human species was less than that of the average sperm donor?

I knew that it had been suggested that Netwon was gay but what little I have read about his life had always suggested that he was basically too preoccupied with his work and too socially inept to be chasing the "pleasures of the flesh". Whatever form that flesh may have taken...............

Isn't the article suggesting that a population containing 'gay genes' results in higher fecundity females and thus a higher fecundity of the population as a whole?Thus it is suggesting that 'gay genes' are beneficial to the population as whole in terms of NS.Or have I misunderstood?