The continuance of any kind of evolutionary advance requires procreation. If nature actualy removed the very thing that causes its actuality, I can scarecyl see how the products of this would somehow be winners in the game of life. Now, please don't misunderstand me when I speak of winners and losers. I could give a whit for all of that personally, however, I see that many evolutionists place alot of stock in it. They've removed reason from life and have succesfully reduced the whole of life into life or death as the measure of success. So, if nature removes the desire to procreate with members of the opposite sex, then there is no way for them to pass on their genes, which again, is supposed to be the sole purpose of any organism that resides in a purposeless universe, right?
On the other hand, Hamilton's (as modified by Trivers, et al) concept of inclusive fitness would seem to be a valid evolutionary explanation as to how natural selection could favor traits that caused a
reduction in direct reproduction - and still increase overall population fitness. This is what EZScience mentioned above. Although the direct relationship with human homosexuality may be obscured by cultural affect, the
genetic and evolutionary basis seems pretty solid. As Hamilton put it in his original paper (Hamilton WD, 1964, "The genetical evolution of social behavior", Journal of Theoretical Biology 7:1-52),
quote:
If natural selection followed the classical models exclusively, species would not show any behaviour more positively social than the coming together of the sexes and parental care.
In other words, your simplified version of what constitutes fitness - pure reproduction - leaves unanswered a lot of questions as to why and how sociality itself could have arisen. Since it does leave those questions unaddressed - and in the context of this topic I feel this is a major issue - you might consider that you're missing something.
Since there IS an evolutionary explanation as to how non-reproducing members of a population can positively contribute to the overall fitness of the population, your argument that human homosexuality would be an evolutionary dead end - and hence impossible under the ToE - would appear to fall flat.
Edited by Quetzal, : changed post title before Nosy hurts me
™ Version 4.2