Perhaps, homosexuality results from the complex and unstable processes involved in the very nature of reproduction. Everyone is a combination of maleness and femaleness. Males just happen to be far more male than female, and females vice versa. But all males have some degree of femininity, and all females some degree of masculinity. In Eastern Mystic terms, there’s a bit of yin and yang in everyone. Even straight guys can find certain men attractive(though not enough to kiss and bugger up the arse), and straight girls can find other women attractive. Possibly, a straight guy forced to choose between humping a fat ugly woman and rolling in the hay with Tom Cruise might opt for the latter.

Let’s suppose homosexuality is the result of the unstable processes involved in the very nature of sexuality. Consider a product composed of a complicated combination of chemicals. Suppose the method involves many ‘tricks’ and could easily go wrong without proper procedures. Suppose the processes have been ‘perfected’ over the years but can never be foolproof. So, even though they work most of the time, it’s never all the time.

The rule of complexity is the more complicated something is, the higher the chances of something going wrong. It’s easy to build a thousand perfect toy bridges but not so real bridges of concrete and steel. It’s easy to set up ten dominoes without any falling but not so with a million dominoes. One can hardly go wrong with a recipe for mashed potatoes but not so with elaborate French or Chinese cuisines. Humans are complex full course meals, not simple dishes, meaning they have more chances of accumulating ‘bugs’ in their systems, especially as their separation from nature opened up many more social, cultural, and intellectual niches of complexity(and neuroticism).
Even a master chef who’d ‘perfected’ his skills over the years sometimes turns out a bad dish once in a while. Despite the exact same ingredients and instruments, the process could be disrupted by stress, distraction, anxiety, and etc.
Over 100,000s of years of evolution, the process of creating men and women has been ‘perfected’ among humans(preceded by 100s of millions of years of evolution that diverged organisms into male and female), but it could never be foolproof as the processes only grew in complexity. Consider the super-complex space program where, even after countless inspections to prevent accidents, something blows up in space or malfunctions on Mars.

The instability inherent in human sexuality could be due to the fact that all humans are the product of ‘opposite’ tendencies, i.e. all humans are the product of mixing of male and female genes(with the added factor that the male/female divide became more nuanced among humans relative to other species, such as the gorilla where the male is starkly much bigger and stronger than the female). Generally, the offspring is either male(or mostly male) or female(or mostly female), but the processes are so complex and unstable that they sometimes result in someone who is neither strictly male or female. So, you end up with men who feel like women and women who feel like men.

So perhaps, the main reason for homosexuality isn’t so much the genetic ingredients as the complex processes involved in the mixing of those ingredients(and may explain why even a hyper-male and hyper-female can sometimes produce a pansy boy child). Such mixing of unstable and ‘opposing’ elements, ‘maleness’ and ‘femaleness’, may not always go according to plan.

One thing for sure, even if the world were to be totally cleansed of all homos and their supposedly ‘gay genes’, homosexuals will emerge again from the simple fact that the complex process of sexual differentiation in reproductivity remains prone to errors and ‘accidents’.
Thus, homosexuality may be unlike other genetic characteristics. If we were to rid the planet of all blacks or all Asians, along with every last vestige of blackness or Asianness as recessive traits, there would indeed be no more black people or Asian people. But even if we were to eliminate all homos and their supposed ‘gay genes’, along with the recessive ‘gay genes’ in straight people, from the earth, homos will re-emerge because the super-complex processes involved in the mixing of man-genetics and woman-genetics will remain over-complicated, resulting in errors, or homosexuals.

Non-blacks don’t need to mix with blacks to produce life. White people can reproduce and continue as a race all on their own. Same with blacks or any other race or ethnic group. But, men cannot have sex with men and survive as a ‘race’ of men, and women cannot have sex with women and survive as a ‘race’ of women. Men must mix with women to produce life, which means all humans are the combination of man-ness and woman-ness.
Ideally from a biological viewpoint, the product of male-and-female sexual union should be a boy or a girl, but some boys tend to be girlish while some girls are boyish. The mixing of ‘opposite’ elements is always an unstable thing. Still, most effeminate boys grow up to be straight men, and most tomboys are straight girls.

Because homo guys prefer having ‘sex’(aka homo-fecal penetration) with other men, they’ve no chance of producing life as no baby is going to squeeze out of the anus, not even a female one.
So, it’s logical to ask how homosexuality could have survived through the eons of evolution when ‘gay sex’ never produced a single life. But, such questioning could be barking up the wrong tree. Homosexuality may actually be the defective byproduct of the complex and unstable processes inherent in straight sexuality that combines male genetic codes with female genetic codes, made even more complicated by the fact that even males have ‘feminine’ traits and females ‘male’ traits.

Another instability intrinsic to sexuality could be that maleness and femaleness may not really be opposites. If indeed opposites, opposites that attract one another. Before the division of life into male and female, life was asexual. Sexuality grew out of asexuality when asexual organisms split into ‘male’ and ‘female’. So, both maleness and femaleness are outgrowths of asexuality. Though asexual organisms split into male and female, the purpose wasn’t to go separate ways but to reunite to reproduce life more effectively.
It is the central paradox of life. Life separated into male and female in order to better facilitate replication by reuniting the male and female. Thus, maleness and femaleness split only to come together in a more powerful union. They are like magnetic opposites.
Among homosexuals, it’s as if maleness and femaleness co-exist in near-equal balance within the same person. A homo guy can be awfully ‘bitchy’ and fussy-wussy(and often has the narcissistic traits of womenfolk).

If homosexuality is the product of ‘gay genes’, one would expect certain groups to have a higher representation of homos due to socio-cultural reasons. But, the current science says the rates of homosexuality are more or less same across cultural groups. If homosexuality is purely genetic, there should paradoxically be more homos in repressively anti-homosexual cultures than in relatively permissive ones. Why? Because in a repressive social order that is highly anti-homosexual, homos are likely to remain in the closet, get married, and raise a family. Otherwise, the poor bugger might be stoned to death. Given the intensely anti-homo creed of the Jews and Muslims through the ages, there should be more homos in the Jewish and Arab communities.

In a social order that is relatively tolerant of sexual deviancy, homos could go off on their own and dilly-dally in their tootish ways. Among traditional Jews, homosexuality was a capital crime against God. An outed homosexual could have his head crushed by a rock or be forced into exile. So, there would have been intense pressure on traditional Jewish homos to remain in the closet, get married, and raise a family, i.e. conform to socio-sexual norms. Thus, more homo genes would have been passed down the Jewish bloodline. If indeed there is a higher percentage of tooters among Jews, it’s a strong argument for the genetic factor in homosexuality. However, if the rates of homosexuality are more or less the same among all groups, then homosexuality is more likely the product of complex reproductive processes going awry.

Could there have been cultural reasons for the continuation of homosexuality? Perhaps, natural homosexuals, as opposed to the socially coerced macho-homos(or machomos) like the Spartans, tended to be less warlike and stay away from the battlefield. So, if lots of tough straight guys marched into battle and got killed, homo guys had a higher survival rate by staying close to home with the girls. As they were close to the ladies, maybe they humped some of them EVEN IF their sexual preference was for men. Since most men weren’t homo and refused to have ‘sex’ with tooters, the homo guys might have settled for women, or at least manlier women(like Michelle Obama). Or the homo guy could have closed his eyes while humping the woman and pretended her pooter is ‘his’ poop-chute.
Also, straight or not, many people eventually want children and something like family life. As homo men cannot have kids through homo-fecal-penetration, they would have to do with women to have a family. A homo guy might have ‘butt sex’ with other men for maximum pleasure, but he could still come home to his woman and children.

Indeed, a similar arrangement was not uncommon among aristocrats through the ages and across cultures. A nobleman would marry someone deemed appropriate but have mistresses on the side. So, just like men of privilege had both a respectable life with wife & children and a fun life with a mistress(or two or three), homo men could have played a similar game. Think of Laurence Olivier’s character in SPARTACUS who goes both ways.

Also, a disproportionate number of homos were likely to have been powerful and privileged, even in societies hostile to open homosexuality. Why? Because the rich and powerful appreciate fancy things. If the average sensibility of a straight guy is rather simple(beer and balls, the kind that don’t hurt to be kicked), the homo sensibility tends to be finer and subtler, like daybreak and twilight, which is more special than bright day or black night.
While most guys are simply masculine and most girls are simply feminine, homos tend to have that rarified blend of male aggression and female grace. It means homos have an advantage in certain areas of creativity. No wonder then that they were patronized and protected by the privileged classes that craved the finer things in life. Even conservative men want their wives’ dresses to be designed by some toot than by Big Boss Man. Consider all the famous homosexual artists who were favored and fawned upon by the privileged classes despite the prevailing sexual mores and prohibitions. With greater proximity to riches and power, successful homo men could have taken an aristocratic approach to sexuality. Have a wife and children at home while enjoying homo ‘mister-resses’ on the side. One wonders why English culture became so gay(in style), indeed way before ‘gay’ became synonymous with ‘homosexual’. Even straight men talked and walked like homos long before homosexuality was decriminalized.

Today, sexual politics is further complicated in the West because of the black factor. Without blacks, sexual politics among whites would neatly divide into white men and white women. White men would own masculinity, white women would own femininity. But this sexual dynamic seems to be breaking down as the black race, as a whole, is seen as more masculine than the white race. This means even black women may be seen as more ‘manly’ than white men, not least because many have primitive features, act like ‘sheboons’, and often holler up a storm. (On the Rolling Stones song, ‘Gimme Shelter’, the hollering Negress overwhelms Mick Jagger who’s left sounding like Peter Noone. Even the King of Rock n Roll Elvis Presley has to contend with hollering Negresses in ‘Suspicious Minds’. It’s like even a female gorilla can beat up a male human.)

If blackness is masculine while whiteness is feminine, it means even white guys(often called ‘faggoty-ass white boys’ by black guys) are left feeling wussy-and-pussy vis-a-vis the black race. In schools where black boys routinely intimidate, threaten, or beat up white boys who cower in fear, the result will be more jungle fever among white girls and more cuck-groveling among white boys.
It may explain the explosion of tranny craziness among white males who are being pussified at record rate. And look at the flower boys of Japan and K–gay-pop boys of South Korea. Under globalism, Asian males don’t win much at sports, and Asian femaleness has higher value than Asian maleness. It may explain why Asian males have adopted pussy-boy antics as their proper role in the global order. Sensing that Asian-femaleness is hipper than Asian-male-ness, even Asian males strive for feminine qualities. Globalism certainly further complicates the already very complex dynamics of sexuality.

Perhaps, globalism values globo-homo stuff as a safety-valve against angry male reaction to threats from the Other. After all, white men have traditionally reacted violently to black(or any nonwhite) threat to white sexual unity. Interracial relationships, especially between black men and white women, were banned in Old America. And white men lynched black men who raped white women and punished, socially or legally, white women who were into jungle fever. There was a time when white men were hostile to blacks in sports as black men had the potential to beat up whites and dominate the field as the new archetype of the American Male.
If white men were to cling only to masculine culture(as the only option for men), they’re likely to react to the black male threat as the destroyer of white male pride. They are more likely to fume with anger and explode into a Race War.
But, if white males are given the option of becoming trannies and other such gender-weird freaks(and are celebrated as such), they need not dwell on their butt-hurt white male pride and happily become girly men who no longer see black masculinity as a threat(as they’ve been ‘castrated’ of white male pride). This also seems to be the case with Asian soyboys. In the past, they have reacted angrily, even violently, to foreign men coming to use their women as whores or taking them as wives. Imperial Japan certainly wasn’t going to allow itself to be turned into a land of mamasans for American G.I.’s. But today, what with globo-homo all over Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, the yellow boys are far less likely to react angrily to the Gaijin-Threat and just play at being the ‘other girls’ in whoopsy-doo fashion. Under globalism, one doesn’t have to be sexually homo to be ‘globo-homo’ or ‘metrosexual’ in style and demeanor. It’s all Ewwwwww if you ask me.