>>11629240if, hypothetically, there's some gene which makes people more attracted to men, then that would be selected for in women.
However, not all genes are sex linked, so these genes could be selected for in women, who are then more likely to pass on these genes to their sons and daughters, a good example of natural selection. The sons being more likely to be homosexual is just a by-product of the daughters being hypothetically more fertile, the gene is agnostic to whether genetic dead ends occur in the form of sons who are less likely to reproduce, only that it gets copied and multiplies within the population.
If this sort of thing existed (I think there's some studies which correlate female fertility rates to male homosexuality in their siblings, but i cba to look it up), then it'd probably be self regulated from spreading to the majority of the population due to something like Fishers principle.
There's probably all sorts of mechanisms which could select for male homosexuality, an analogy could be sickle cell trait: in its recessive form, it helps against malaria, yet in its dominant form it can be fatal, in the form of sickle cell anemia, and because of that many equatorial populations (specifically Africans) have it in a higher frequency.
