On Wed, 1 Dec 1999 email@example.com wrote:
> So we went from 100% carrying the gay gene to 75% in the next generation.
> Or if you count percentage of breeders, it is 67%. This will continue
> to drop each generation, eventually eliminating the gene from the pool.
As I tried to point out, a gene might be preserved if it happens to be useful in specfic environments. It is also true that a gene might be preserved if it happens to physically sit next to a gene that is valuable. You will get preservation of adjacent genes that where one of them happens to be valuable, because crossovers in DNA occur over regions of megabases to tens of megabases while genes are mostly only kilobases in size.
Getting rid of garbage DNA is difficult when there is little selection pressure to do so. Only in birds (or perhaps bats) does there seem to be selection pressure to delete "junk/underutilized" DNA (for reasons of weight reduction). In mammals, there is likely to be an accumulation of genes which prompt "atypical" behaviors when they are not suppressed or counteracted by other genes.
So, the real problem is not with the term "natural" or "atypical" but with the term "homosexual" -- it decribes a gross behavioral characteristic that might have multiple underlying, but distinctly different, physical (or environmental) causes.