Humans are social (group) creatures. This means anything that promotes group survival is good. So how does your favorite strawman play out here? Well assuming an extremely strong genetic component:
1. Homosexuals by not being inclined to reproduce may now contribute excess resources to the group well-being.
2. Homosexuals can pick up slack child-rearing duties, e.g. in cases of orphaned children, and do so without the complications and child favoring that happens very frequently when a child is adopted by someone with his own offspring.
Furhter contributing: Homosexuality is not strictly binary, it is a combination of factors, so that those who never mate will not contribute too strong of a homosexual orientation to future generations, there are those who are bisexual or "a little gay" who can keep passing the genes that will make some portion of the population homosexual. Cultural norms of course will play in here as well sometimes being more permissive, other times not, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is subtle genetic idea of balance that is driving this cultural throttle to the homosexual thing.
The big thing to remember tho, is that evolution doesn't always select on individual basis, but frequently on a group basis.
NOTE: i use active words here, as if evolution has a goal, but that is just because I don't want to write like: the selection pressures sometimes result in an overal systemic balance and species or group wide advantage while at the same time resulting in some individuals with a much lower reproductive probability.
These are all regularly espoused reasons, but compared to the article in question they seem rather weak. Some of the tone in your comment seems to suggest that I'm making a political argument. Let me be very clear here and now that I am not. Nothing I say here insinuates morality of any form. I'm simply trying to understand why.
I get the bi-sexuality aspect of this, but homosexuality is much more than simply not being selective in who you have sex with. There are significant traits and brain changes in people that identify as homosexual that shouldn't be present if all homosexuality is simply the result of permissiveness in our ancestors.
While the effects of evolution can be observed on a macro scale, they are always the result of selfish genes. In other words, I'm not sure I completely buy the idea of kin selection, especially with humans. That being said it's not something I've deeply versed in.
1. Homosexuals by not being inclined to reproduce may now contribute excess resources to the group well-being.
2. Homosexuals can pick up slack child-rearing duties, e.g. in cases of orphaned children, and do so without the complications and child favoring that happens very frequently when a child is adopted by someone with his own offspring.
Furhter contributing: Homosexuality is not strictly binary, it is a combination of factors, so that those who never mate will not contribute too strong of a homosexual orientation to future generations, there are those who are bisexual or "a little gay" who can keep passing the genes that will make some portion of the population homosexual. Cultural norms of course will play in here as well sometimes being more permissive, other times not, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is subtle genetic idea of balance that is driving this cultural throttle to the homosexual thing.
The big thing to remember tho, is that evolution doesn't always select on individual basis, but frequently on a group basis.
NOTE: i use active words here, as if evolution has a goal, but that is just because I don't want to write like: the selection pressures sometimes result in an overal systemic balance and species or group wide advantage while at the same time resulting in some individuals with a much lower reproductive probability.