But since gay and lesbian people have fewer children than straight people, a problem arises.
“This is a paradox from an evolutionary perspective,” says Paul Vasey from the University of Lethbridge in Canada. “How can a trait like male homosexuality, which has a genetic component, persist over evolutionary time if the individuals that carry the genes associated with that trait are not reproducing?”
Scientists don’t know the answer to this Darwinian puzzle, but there are several theories. It’s possible that different mechanisms may be at work in different people. Most of the theories relate to research on male homosexuality. The evolution of lesbianism is relatively understudied – it may work in a similar way or be completely different."
'via Blog this'
I've written my theory about this before:
Suppose homosexuality is genetic. In the past, the "gay" gene was passed on because gays felt societal pressure to marry and procreate. With that pressure gone, the gene is not going to be passed along as frequently. The gay population will dwindle. A commenter on a prior blog pointed out that homosexuality could be a recessive gene, and, therefore, passed along without manifestation, making it much more resistant to extinction. But even so, our society's acceptance of homosexuality, if it is genetic, basically guarantees that the gay presence in the population will decrease, right? Or am I missing something?