Provoking article: explaining homosexuality through "eusociality"

Right, I didn't know what that meant either. Here is the introduction to a very interesting and I'd say controversial article on the biology of homosexuality:

Only by conceiving of evolution as acting upon entire populations rather than individual organisms can we understand eusociality -- the mysterious, seemingly "altruistic" behaviors exhibited by insects who forego reproduction in order to care for a colony's young. So says Edward O. Wilson, the legendary sociobiologist, environmentalist and entomologist, in an article published in the January issue of Bioscience.

The author then goes into how this line of reason could lead to a potential explanation for the presence of homosexuality (which many seek to explain, as from a purely evolutionary biology perspective, it doesn't make sense for us gays not to procreate with women, but no thanks!). I think the conclusions are not well stated below, but oh well, the ideas are still worth reading:

Wilson thinks eusociality evolved as a group-level adaptation for out-competing other insect colonies for food: with some colony members devoted to protecting eggs and larva, others could forage farther abroad. All that's needed to take this evolutionary step is the rise of a gene -- or system of genes -- that makes workers want to stay home and help rather than leave the colony and reproduce elsewhere. The theory is far from settled. No such allele has been identified, and theoretical biologists haven't been able to model it....

So with all necessary caveats against reductionism and misappropriation, we can ask: should human societies conceive of themselves in terms of group-level selection? Have we already developed aspects of eusociality? And -- just to make matters really interesting -- could non-reproducing humans, such as (most) gays and lesbians, as well as heterosexuals who choose not to have kids, actually be a manifestation of this emergent eusociality?

Citing eusociality in defense of any lifestyle choice, even theoretically, could backfire: it implies a subservience of individual well-being to the greater good. But at least it suggests that certain unorthodox lifestyles might not be so "unnatural" after all.