Quote Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
The same stringence must be applied to homosexuality. If homosexuality is adaptive, then it must increase chances for the genes. It has been hypothised that after several male children, then need to further offspring generating males diminishes. If only one of the heterosexual male children survives, he can create unlimited offspring. Therefore male children further down the birth order may better have more female traits like caring and socializing, without having children of his own because that may help to increase the chances of the offspring of the older males.
Having a homosexual child may indeed be beneficial because of social effects, but the interest is that of genes, not the group.
I understand your argument, but I think you're missing a key point -- behavior which encourages group survival while also encouraging survival of those who are genetically close to you can be a genetically beneficial strategy. In other words, if I sacrifice myself to save my brother and his wife, I am not being genetically stupid. My brother's genes are very similar to my own, so my sacrifice has helped propogate 99.999% of my genes.

Let's leave off the bees and ants, since the workers are asexual. Look at the group dynamics of wolves, or better yet (since they're cute) meerkats. Only the alpha pair are allowed to breed. Any other pups get killed. So why do the daughters and sons of the alphas stay in the pack? What advantage is there for them individually? From your perspective, none. From my perspective, plenty.

Respect the herd ...