Top misconceptions of Theory of Evolution you had to deal with

[Alex K]

There are three issues here. If you accept for the sake of the argument that 1. there might be a gene that increases the likelihood that a carrier is homosexual (which I don't think is settled, but doesn't sound too far fetched), and that 2. having a small number of homosexual relatives is beneficial for survival and procreation, then this gene will be selected for and there is nothing magic going on: families in which the h-gene is present will produce more surviving offspring, and the h-gene becomes more frequent in the population. No genes do anything on purpose.

The details depend on how likely the gene makes an individual homosexual, and how helpful homosexual relatives actually are to ensure successful offspring.

This neglects the extra baby making that would occur in a germ line that isn't host to the gay gene. For where you would have an Uncle Stan on the one line, the gay one, you would have a Reproductive Bob on the other line. I think that would more than offset any advantage gained through gay parenting.

The assumption that this is outweighed by the benefits was implicit in my 2. in which I meant the net effect, but you're right of course, I didn't say that clearly.