This is a bit personal, being as I am someone who works as a biologist and is queer, but homosexuality and heterosexuality are not exactly a binary, nor have they EVER been, and this doesn't exactly lend itself well to tersely-linked allele studies, which is why many of them have had some many problems with reproducibility. Sexual and romantic desire are the result of complex interactions between social and innate factors. Trying to directly tie this to a freakin gene, which may provide some preference via developmental avenues (which hasn't exactly been, you know, proven) has no deterministic tie to a complex behavior such as homosexuality, much less it's current iteration, it just provides a nice avenue for some researchers bear upon it with their field of interest and should be taken with a spoonful of salt.

Absolutely. Looking back I realize I sort of implied that the hypothesis was widely accepted, but I understand that it remains just a hypothesis; I brought it up purely for the sake of explaining my own theory regarding the development of religion.

What it means to have religious belief varies wildly throughout history, and tying any moral center (including altruism) is really misstating what the nature of religion is, namely, metaphysical arguments for the intent and purpose of humanity's existence and explanations of the natural world. Or at least, that's my conception of it.

That's fair, I guess I just intended to address the altruistic aspects of major religions. I've actually written in the past about separating religion as moral code from religion as belief about the supernatural, if you're interested I could repost it here (the subreddit where I originally posted went private).