The other day payed up after my hernia operation, I read Dan Brown's 'Inferni', loosely based on Dante, and using Florence as a backdrop.
He is very , very subtle about the homoerotic art, namely some obvious ones, like the huuuuge sculpture of David. To the ordinary reader, these observations are far and few between, so no connections can be made between perception, analysis of the central motive, and preferences.
Needless to say, upon more careful reading, the central motive so overshadows any other sub-motive, that the sexual embellishments fade into the background.
But. And here is a but, not to be overlooked, there is a hypothesis out there among earthies and population control theorists, that the gay agenda serves a very keen function in limiting human reproduction. The message is so dire, that the author gives about a hundred years, if that much, for a total collapse of humanity, along the lines of the Malthusian principle of pupulatiin increase vastly over running the possible increases in the production of food.
I have gone half way in the book, and have no idea of how there may be any resolution, but the argument is valid only if Malthus is to be believed.
We have Trump, who disbelieved green ideas, including the use of fossil fuels, meat production, pollution, and he may be actually going against the tenets of any protocol which serves to protect the environment.
Is homosexuality ok and functional? There are tremendous problems with it, such as those relating to the stability of the family, and the shallow visual triggers which basically shortcut the deeper levels of meaningful relationships, again so they claim. But can these objections be overcome by the obvious problems that overpopulation causes?
According to Brown, and the myriad scholars helping him write it, the problem is overwhelming, and the sustained insistence on limited sexual mores are far outweighed. The latter is the opinion of those , pushing the gay agenda, and their rationale is interesting. They claim, that it is Nature Herself, which changes not only opinions, but actually the very bio-chemical processes which adept living organisms toward survival values.
This is why, astronomy, space science and technology is in such a hurry to find other places to live in in the universe.
Of course, there are other factors dealing with repression, the retention of ideal structural processes, surrounding it, and these claim a trivialization of life in all its aspects, were the ideal converted into phenomenal manifestations.
The phenomenological , or conceptual relegation of Eros, would undermine the ontological certainty by which society , by keeps and bounds managed to keep civilization going, in the scholastic sense.
This sense, is as important to human values, as its nemesis, and the two proceeded side by side hysterically, one overt, the other latent, a shadow, always on its heel.
With all considerations aside, it should be possible to ferret out the relative truth of what is going on in regards to homosexuality, but the structural backward glance, as it is with other studies which relay on inductive reasoning, the biases can never be truly excavated.
I said a lot, because the few lines in the preceding comments were very brief, and attempted only to come to some type of opinion based answer.
I would think, personally, that homosexuality far more a literal type of behavior, not having the structural balance, which heterosexuality has earned over the eons of time. This is why the Vatican classifies it as a structural imbalance. They are right of course, but their argument is null, since structure comes with assemblage through the approved process of life, hence repression cannot add to it. Therefore to categorize it is missing a very important point, akin to the Vatican's fear of loosing increasing membership to the Church, would the approve methods of birth control and abortion.
It would seem, that on a structural level, there is an insoluability, which reflects the question toward an either/or balance pitting opinions against science.
But again, there are those who reject the implications of Malthus, for various reasons.