Like all highly social mammal groups sex is not just for reproduction. It's also part of dominance, bonding, and all kinds of other group social dynamics. Same sex interactions are found throughout nature, it would be weird if we didn't have any at all.
A recurring point is that male homosexuality is more common than you would think considering its heritability estimates. Nobody is suggesting it's wouldn't happen at all. Even without whatever infectious agent is involved some people would probably still be homosexual.
male bonding has a sexual component and makes sense if defending the group from outsiders is important for the success of a local population. Same for better hunter groups, which were likely all male. The same isn't true for the female dominated arts of human culture, the gatherers were everyone else not hunting or defending.
male bonding has a sexual component
If that made male homosexuality advantageous, one might expect a higher heritability. Maybe.
The same isn't true for the female dominated arts of human culture
There is the hypothesis that women are more inclined towards homosexual feelings to keep them from hating each other when they are wives of the same man. This way they have each other when they don't get enough attention from the man. I can't help but feel a bit of this theory is wishful thinking on a heterosexual man's part, but we all have our fantasies.
Hon, I really hope I'm not hurting your feelings. I know this idea has a lot of room to be abused by people who won't want to give it careful thought. I'm just giving this hypothesis some attention because it's not often heard and I find it more compelling than the gay gene hypothesis and homosexual reproduction hypothesis. I really don't want to make you (or many people) uncomfortable.
(post is archived)