>>13309662>Gay couples would rise children other parents did not want, is the running theory it allowed more children to survive and thus supported our survival.That's not a working theory. That's a brainlet bit of nonsense.
Homosexuality is a complex behavioural trait. It is the height of retardation to envisage 'a gay gene'. It's going to be influenced by a variety of genes and importantly, by environment.
If there are specific alleles (or combinations thereof) that predispose people to homosexuality, and if those genes have been positively selected, then it's unlikely to be because they made people gay, but for different effects they had in different genetic backgrounds or different environments. In analysing complex traits of modern humans it's always important to remember that we are not optimised for our current environment, but also that selection has never stopped so nor are we optimised for any hypothetical prehistoric environment. Also key to bear in mind is that humans recently went through a massive and rapid population expansion, which gives ample opportunity for the increase of mildly deleterious traits.
Adaptationist just-so stories about complex human behaviour are usually going to be wrong and should be avoided unless you have a meaningful way of testing them. Otherwise some retard journalist will print your vague suggestion as 'Science!' and then we'll have retard anons like the one I'm replying to stating it as accepted fact on /sci/
