> This is corroborated if I recall correctly by findings that each new child in a family has more chance to be homosexual than their already born siblings.
Very radical approach, seemingly against the grain of what we observe in the wild. It's such a leap of logic, you may very well have been talking about how santa claus' reindeer achieve thrust for their impressive levitation.
I'm not sure what you mean. Humans have been social animals for a very long time, so it stands to reason that they would be genetically different from non humans, although i'd expect similar results in other social animals.
> There are theories for how a low percentage of homosexuality might be selected for.
My initial response was to the above statement which to my eyes presupposes homosexuality to be genetically expressed. Which has nothing to do with social/environmental factors.
An example of similar results in other social animals are worker/soldier ants/bees/termites. They don't reproduce, but by contributing to the survival of their hive of relatives, they still end up spreading their genes.
Are they homosexual or asexual? Let's not confuse the two. They "cant" reproduce is quite a leap away from "can produce but won't" because as far as I am aware homosexuality has nothing to do with sexual reproduction and the required 'machinery'.
Unless you have some solid papers or anecdotal experiences that say otherwise I'm willing to change my stance.
Very radical approach, seemingly against the grain of what we observe in the wild. It's such a leap of logic, you may very well have been talking about how santa claus' reindeer achieve thrust for their impressive levitation.