[All-In Flynn]

Anticipated in OP, to be honest. What I'm talking about is small tendencies, over evolutionary time-scales, will magnify effects in the genome. Suppose that gayness renders a male only 5% less likely to procreate - in the fulness of evolutionary time, this will have a profound effect. Do you doubt that gayness would tend to make a male compete with less vigour for the right to copulate with a female? Do you believe his competitors would not welcome this? Would they force their own rivals to compete all the harder? I am talking here about pre-civilisation, before codified laws and before all but the most rudimentary concepts of 'social norms' (group-selectionists note: the existence of homophobia argues strongly against the 'loser male' hypothesis, I'll explain why I think so if anyone cares).

Again, clearly there are countless examples of gays procreating - but undeniably (I think) they are somewhat less likely to - and that is what concerns me here. What I'm getting at is that if there's a genetic basis, it's emphatically not of the simple, two blue-eyed parents = blue-eyed baby type.

As to the supposed 'very very inaccurate view' of gayness - I'm not presuming to speak for or dictate the motives or feelings of contemporary gays - like contemporary straights, they are not the same as the relatively distant ancestors I'm discussing.