Reproductive Strategies and Homosexuality
A somewhat random chain of thought led me to the conclusion that homosexuality is actually rather symbolic of what makes humans so amazing. (Admittedly, I'm biased toward humans by being one.)
Different animals use different reproductive strategies that can be roughly categorized based on how much care they put into their young. Some animals use a strategy where they have vast quantities of young that they do not care for. A large percentage of these young will die off before they ever reach adulthood, often many of them dying very young, but the large numbers of offspring tends to ensure that some live on to populate the next generation. There isn't anything exactly wrong with this strategy, but it may seem a bit repugnant to you, since it isn't very much like what humans do and prefer.
Humans tend to have very few children, but put a great deal of care into each one. Some may die off before reaching adulthood, but they try to have a large percentage of them live on to reproduce. The vast amount of care we give to our young is almost certainly a large part of why we are able to have so much culture, and thus why we have achieved so many amazing things. This is the human way.
The thing about homosexuality is that it is m
ost likely a strategy for increasing the likely amount of care that children get by decreasing the reproductive rate for the adults. People who do not reproduce are more likely to help their close kin (nieces and nephews being likely examples). This would help to increase the adult to child ratio, and thus increase the amount of care and support available for children - working with the strategy that many animals use, but that humans especially excel at.
Of course, this then gets massively affected by culture, which has probably mucked with it a lot. Especially causing many homosexuals to get into mixed-sex relationships. And you can have children and be homosexual. Modern human culture and technology starts making all sorts of things work differently. So the current day effects will be quite different. But it seems plausible that homosexuality has been a good way for species that care for their young to take that strategy one step further. And it allows for more fractional amounts of extra adult care than adding a new partner does (like the primates that group up into two male one female groups to increase the adult-child ratio because they really need that many adults in order to survive and cope while raising young), maybe a full extra parent is too much, but a likely helpful sibling who can help out a little bit with the children of all of the other siblings is more useful. Basically, it seems much more tweakable by evolution than having to add a full extra animal, and easier to do than having to change the relationship structure genetically. Genetic lines with good ratios of tendency toward homosexuality would just have better survivability.
Different animals use different reproductive strategies that can be roughly categorized based on how much care they put into their young. Some animals use a strategy where they have vast quantities of young that they do not care for. A large percentage of these young will die off before they ever reach adulthood, often many of them dying very young, but the large numbers of offspring tends to ensure that some live on to populate the next generation. There isn't anything exactly wrong with this strategy, but it may seem a bit repugnant to you, since it isn't very much like what humans do and prefer.
Humans tend to have very few children, but put a great deal of care into each one. Some may die off before reaching adulthood, but they try to have a large percentage of them live on to reproduce. The vast amount of care we give to our young is almost certainly a large part of why we are able to have so much culture, and thus why we have achieved so many amazing things. This is the human way.
The thing about homosexuality is that it is m
ost likely a strategy for increasing the likely amount of care that children get by decreasing the reproductive rate for the adults. People who do not reproduce are more likely to help their close kin (nieces and nephews being likely examples). This would help to increase the adult to child ratio, and thus increase the amount of care and support available for children - working with the strategy that many animals use, but that humans especially excel at.
Of course, this then gets massively affected by culture, which has probably mucked with it a lot. Especially causing many homosexuals to get into mixed-sex relationships. And you can have children and be homosexual. Modern human culture and technology starts making all sorts of things work differently. So the current day effects will be quite different. But it seems plausible that homosexuality has been a good way for species that care for their young to take that strategy one step further. And it allows for more fractional amounts of extra adult care than adding a new partner does (like the primates that group up into two male one female groups to increase the adult-child ratio because they really need that many adults in order to survive and cope while raising young), maybe a full extra parent is too much, but a likely helpful sibling who can help out a little bit with the children of all of the other siblings is more useful. Basically, it seems much more tweakable by evolution than having to add a full extra animal, and easier to do than having to change the relationship structure genetically. Genetic lines with good ratios of tendency toward homosexuality would just have better survivability.