Please notice I was not trying to argue against that statement. I was arguing against the statement that preceded.<quoted text>
That's correlation, not causation.
Crows and parrots also both have beaks, but that doesn't cause homosexual activity among those birds.
That is true. But, if there is a genetic component shared by sibillings that causes homossexuality, it constitutes an argument is favour of the hypothesis that homossexual behaviour can be favoured by natural selection.
[QUOTE who="Nuggin"]<quo ted text>
Which contradicts the statement that a gay man is no more likely to produce gay offspring how exactly?
You imply that homossexuality does not have a genetic component. My argument "...the sister of a homossexual man is more likely to produce homossexual offspring..." shows that, homossexuality does have a genetic component.<quoted text>
It's not a gene found in gay people.