I have a qualm with the following: They even provided a ridiculous genetic explanation for how a species with a small percentage gay people might evolve Corre

I have a qualm with the following: They even provided a ridiculous genetic explanation for how a species with a small percentage gay people might evolve Correct me if I'm wrong, but scientific evidence suggests that a gene (or set of genes) may be responsible for homosexuality. In this case, an explanation for its existence is both warranted and interesting. The leading explanation, as I've understood it, is that the gene may make women more fertile, perpetuating the life of the gene through one gender only. Being "gay" may be more than just a label. This is not to say that genetically we are either 1s or 0s, but that some people may be genetically definitively gay. Furthermore, if homosexuality were a taboo, then it doesn't seem at all outlandish to presume that genetically gay famous figures would lead PC lives and have extramarital homosexual sex. This may seem obvious but I thought you were too quick to say that science which supports the existence of homosexuality is "ridiculous." Could you at least post the evidence which demonstrates or suggests that this is not the case? The article touched on accurate points, I just don't think that we should necessarily disacknowledge scientists who are trying to explain a very real phenomenon.