This article purports to explain the genetic advantage of male homosexuality. The notion is that male homosexuality should reduce mating opportunities, so the gene should cease to be. But as we all know male homosexuals is just natural homemakers, so this nurturing helpfulness of all homosexual men keeps the gene complex going by preserving the larger kin group -- no doubt by ensuring the cave/hut was always spotless and decorated with some nice healthy ferns and lichens.
I find so many things wrong with this analysis -- starting with the notion that homosexual men are uniformly more nurturing based on a study of a particular culture in Samoa going to the supposed impact of sexual preference on mating opportunities. Further, lots of traits that appear to have no value in and of themselves, but are merely side products of other traits and have no impact on survival one way or another, persist. Everything from eye color (there appears no advantage of one color or another) to male nipples (it appears human beings come in a basic pattern and then we specialize in utero as male or female) to handedness (apparently a byproduct of our neural development).
I shall be grateful when the craze of "evolutionary psychology" goes the way of other fads that purport to explain human behavior but end up as a bunch of "Just So" stories that always explain why we are exactly as we are.