>>11327605Men are wired towards the act of having sex more so than having children, while women are more interested in having babies. Men developed their desire for sex because it's positively selected for since people who breed obviously have more children. But since our focus is on the sex act itself, and not having children, we can kind of game the system. We stimulate ourselves sexually, and reap all the sensual rewards of mating, but we don't have proper, reproductive sex. From an evolutionary perspective, using a condom is just as absurd as being gay.
That sets up some sort of framework for us to continue this discussion, but I still need to give a more precise answer to your question. Homosexual tends to be very developmental. It's possible that there are genetic factors involved. The argument against this is that such a gene would be selected against evolutionarily speaking. But if such genes did exist, epigenetic factors could use this genetic basis for homosexuality as an even stronger argument for the environmental and development origins of homosexuality. It's possible that these people are actually homosexuals, but certain humans have a genetic repulsion towards homosexuality (which would be positively selected for), so a man who looks like a woman lets certain people engage in homosexuality without triggering visceral disgust. But I find it more likely that these sexual preferences are the result of psycho-social neuroses that were developed as a result of low self-esteem and social alienation.
