I said if it was "evolutionarily inferior" it would have ceased to exist. Not if it was genetic.
No, that is not necessarily true. Under no circumstances can you guarantee the extinction of homosexuality unless all we had were same sex couples who refused to have sex with anything but their own gender. Homosexuals can still reproduce and they do still reproduce.
Yes, if anything, it seems like it's triggered by environmental events. Evolution can only work on heritable traits. So it's not accurate to call homosexuals "inferior from an evolutionary perspective", since evolution does not act on homosexuality.
It has nothing to do with passing on a homosexual gene. It has to do with the likelihood that homosexuals will procreate.
You don't know that for sure. But let's assume that homosexuals are in fact less likely to pass on their genes. This will do absolutely nothing to homosexuality itself. And I'm not sure how it really matters how much of their genes they will pass on.
Yes, I do know that for a fact. You do know that same-sex couples can't conceive naturally, right?
Heterosexual couples can and do. For a homosexual to reproduce, they would have to have intercourse with the opposite sex. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.
It is much, much more likely that homosexuals will not pass on their genes. How on earth can you argue otherwise?
You just aren't getting it. This is about what best serves the species, not about passing on certain heritable traits.