Why LGBTQ is dysgenic

https://old.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeechBahai/comments/118n0ls/why_so_many_people_who_grew_up_bahai_are/

This may be true in the short term, meaning the next generation.  But what about the long term?  If homosexuality has a genetic component then tolerating homosexuality removes some of these genes in each generation.  But suppressing homosexuality would prevent these genes from being removed and so the genetic pressure for homosexuality would increase.  And eventually one would expect an explosion of homosexuality like we see in the West today.  (The West was particularly intolerant of homosexuality in the recent past.)  So this implies that discouraging homosexuality is not effective in the long term, and may be harmful because society can better tolerate a small number of homosexuals in each generation than an explosion of homosexuals.

The same argument can be made about any reproductive deficiency. If someone is intelligent but bad at talking to girls for example, then we might as well let his genes die out, and then in the long term perhaps there will be selection pressure placed on the smooth-talker's descendants which will bring intelligence back into the gene pool.

To clarify: My original post on reddit was basically an argument that K-selectedness is the very thing that makes one susceptible to homosexuality. So to select against homosexuality as you suggest would be to select for r-selectedness. You say that if homosexuality has a genetic component it will self-correct by virtue of being a reproductive deficiency. But any reproductive deficiency (e.g. being "bad with women") can be said to be self-correcting. So if the dysgenic effect of homosexuality is not important because it is self-correcting, then neither is the dysgenic effect of people who are naturally "bad with women" not reproducing, since this is also self-correcting.

Does it make sense now?

Homosexuality is well defined.  "Bad with women" is not.  Traits that made one bad with women in a promiscuous culture may make one successful with women in a different culture like one with arranged marriages.  And one doesn't want to select out traits that support a good culture like lack of seduction.  Homosexuality doesn't support a good culture, so it isn't needed.  So I still don't think the analogy works.

I guess the distinction is that K-selected straight men are in competition with r-selected thugs, whereas K-selected homosexuals are not. What you say about supporting a good culture ultimately boils down to this. But this distinction relies on homosexuality being genetic, because if homosexuality has an environmental component then you also have to factor in the hypothetical K-selected straight man that would have existed if he had not been turned gay by the LGBT movement - he would have supported the good culture that prevents r-selected thugs from breeding.

There is another difference.  A culture that entirely loses seduction genes is sustainable.  But a society that becomes increasingly disposed to homosexuality is not sustainable because eventually they will push for homosexuality to be accepted and you will have the homosexual explosion.  And this doesn't depend on homosexuality being entirely genetic.  If it is even partially genetic then this will happen.

If homosexuality is hereditary, heterosexuality will still be more hereditary. Keeping only reproduction in mind, heterosexuals will always have the reproductive advantage over homosexuals. You can say that Christian culture pressures homosexuals to breed by depriving them of options other than heterosexual marriage, but it cannot possibly make them breed to the degree of heterosexuals, so the selection pressure will still be against homosexuality. So if homosexuality proliferates for genetic reasons, it cannot be narrowly homosexuality that is proliferating, but something more general. If this general thing is K-selectedness and the rest of what causes homosexuality is environmental, then the LGBTQ movement is very dysgenic.

This is a good question - Why should homosexuality spread faster than heterosexuality?  One possible argument for bisexuality would be that this is simply the loss of a strong selection instinct, so spreads for the same reason that stupidity spreads faster than intelligence when there is no selection.  Or maybe homosexuality is linked to some other trait that has some advantage.  But I see no reason to assume that this would be K-selectedness.