I don't have an opinion on this comment as a whole, but there are a couple of points I want to isolate because they are so completely wrong.
Males are more sexually expandable
"
Sexually expendable" is pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
It is not a concept in evolutionary biology and it is not a term used by real biologists.
"Sexually expendable" is a very reliable indicator that what you're reading is evo-pop garbage.
I suspect prehistorically, most homonid bands were more or less matriarchal (this ties into various oral history, from Greco-Roman Ages of Man to the Chinese Prehistoric Mythic History, and by studying mammal and homonin societies), with the males wandering off to scout out entirely new territories or join up with other bands (and thus prevent inbreeding). Monogamy wasn't practiced until the neolithic era.
Where to even begin? You seem to think of all prehistoric society as single monolithic homogenous culture that stayed the same during hundreds of thousands of years. Or is this some kind of Jungian archetype thinking? How could "Greco-Roman" or Chinese "oral histories" tell you anything about the particular social structures and mores of the inhabitants of, say, the south coast of Timor during the Minde-Riss interglacial?
Monogamy wasn't practiced until the neolithic era.
And how do you know that? Do you have a time machine? You should share it with anthropologists who'd love such a contraption to observe our ancestors and how they behaved as the proverbial fly on the wall.
Even so, monogamy is not a dichotomy. It's a spectrum of different things like serial monogamy (which is how humans are commonly described), or sexual monogamy without social monogamy. Claiming that monogamy didn't exist before the neolithic, is an extraordinary claim, de facto unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.
with the males wandering off to scout out entirely new territories or join up with other bands
Where did you get this idea that humans males have obligate exogamy?
Chimpanzees, among our closest relatives, have female exogamy. Females leave their group when they reach sexual maturity while males stay.
This is common in many human cultures too, especially agricultural ones.
Also it should be kept in mind that biological and ethnological exo/endogamy are not the same thing.
It also ties into one of the possible causes for male homosexuality— I don't quite recall the study, but male fetuses will detect the relative resource level of their mother's environment and their sexual orientation will alter to reflect the most advantageous orientation for that environment (low resource, then high probability of homosexuality, because then they become non-competing members). The genes that allow for this mechanism are then passed on via nephews or nieces through their reproducing sisters and brothers rather than their own offspring (which they don't have), and of course, because the "gay uncle" helps support their family's survival, so that's why these genes is persistent in the population, same as menopause (which created grandmothers).
This is far less egregious than any of the above, and not wrong per se, but it's a description of kin selection that could easily lead a reader to the misunderstanding that homosexual genes always lead to sterility and that gay people never reproduce on their own.
Now, while I personally think that kin selection is a very plausible hypothesis in the context of homosexuality, one should remember that no definite conclusive evidence between genome and specific homosexual traits has been established, and that it still remains just an hypothesis. Not a theory.
<><><><><>
I'm sorry
@Numen if I'm coming off a bit aggressively; I don't mean to offend. But you're stating some extremely speculative opinions and wild guesses (or plain bullshit) in an authoritative manner that could mislead less well-informed persons as established facts.
I'm particularly dismayed at "sexually expendable", because it's two words that together sound so much like legit biology and serious-face jargon, when it's anything but.
