This wasn't the point. The example was a device to throw people off guard and pull them back for the purpose of promoting self awareness. Personally, I have no stance on the causative origins of homosexuality; But judging from the replies I'm afraid it might have been too successful and pulled people too deep into that cancel culture frame.
Think about it this way. Yes, Social groups can evolve with a percentage of homosexual genes passed on as recessive. This is a valid hypothesis.
But the OTHER hypothesis that states, if homosexuality was genetic it would have been filtered out by natural selection and is therefore a disorder, is an equally valid hypothesis. There is nothing that makes this less valid then the conjecture you presented to me.
Both are logical possibilities, but there is little evidence supporting one over the other as in there is roughly equal amounts of evidence supporting and against both conclusions. So in a sense the two hypothesizes are in equal standing.
The other thing to consider is that the social group hypothesis is the non-obvious hypothesis. People initially think of natural selection on the individual scale. It takes more abstract thinking to place it on a tribal scale, an ecological scale, an anthropological/cultural scale, or as a local phenomenon of entropy in a physical system.
This is the key: To be impartial is to consider both hypothesis's and acknowledge the lack of evidence to place one over the other. However, what is it that makes you (and every other person replying to me) pick, out of two hypothesis's of equal standing, the non-obvious hypothesis while utterly and completely dismissing the obvious hypothesis?
Anyway, the answer is clear, there is strong cultural bias that pulls people in the direction of a reality where equality among people who have different sexual preferences is real. People will unconsciously spend extra effort searching for the hypothesis that best fits there cultural bias and even deny the obvious one.
Hence the reason why the harder non-obvious hypothesis is picked. It better fits.
Literally in the replies there's a dude that's calling me misinformed and there's another dude that's hard lining a No. I am telling you none of these people have definitive evidence for anything (because NONE exists). They are simply observing two logical conjectures and picking the one that best fits their own cultural narrative/bias and they are hard lining a conclusion as a definitive answer when in academia this topic is not conclusive AT ALL.
This is the latest research on the topic: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-fin...
Tell me what conclusion can you derive off of that? That homosexuality is for sure non-genetic and therefore a recent disorder? No. You can't derive that, you can't derive anything off this study. The study is just saying that nothing was found, it doesn't mean nothing exists. That's the state of academia on this topic today. Nothing.
Until we find a causative origin of homosexuality current opinion of academia on the two hypothesis's right now is inconclusive. However, outside of academia the current opinion is definitive and we all know, given the replies to my post, what that conclusion is.
Another thing to consider is, why did you address my example instead of addressing my main point? Again the urge to align reality with cultural bias is far stronger then the discussion at hand. If the urge is strong with you (and the other people who replied, as practically everyone chose to address the example rather then the main point) then it is equally strong with doctors who put much faith in what they're taught by the medical establishment. This further illustrates my point; and the point is:
Cultural biases by society and the medical establishment rule practically everyone's behavior (including you and everyone who replied to me) to a huge extent. Think of this thread as a social experiment meant to illustrate this point. The example was just an example, but cultural biases are so damn strong that it pulled everyone out of the frame of talking about doctors into talking about the example.