Homosexuality in Humans is Natural

I'm finding my opponents flipping of Pro to Con a bit hard to parse. Some parts could be construed to be speaking in the 3rd person, and other reference to me, Pro. If my opponent is not admitting to making a logical fallacy it may be in his best interest to clarify in the final round. If Con is attempting to accuse me of ignoring evidence Con will have to be more explicit because I could make the same accusation against Con given that Con is a biology student could be considered willful, but I will leave it up to the voters to conclude if it is acceptable ignorance, or a willful suppression fallacy. Since my opponent is a biology student, and has admitted that kin selection is in humans I would like to remind everyone of what kin selection is. "Kin Selection refers to apparent strategies in evolution that favor the reproductive success of an organism's relatives even at a cost to their own survival, or reproduction."[15] My opponent is, most likely, correct in claiming that there is only one trait in humans that is subjected to kin selection. However that trait is so broad that it easily encompases my argument. That trait is altruism[16], and what is adoption if not an altruistic act. I would like to reiterate my claim about inheritance that my opponent is misrepresenting. I am not claiming homosexuality is genetic per say. I am claiming that it is epigenetic, and I provided a source in case he was unfamiliar since it wasn't until 2008 that a consensus definition of epigenetics even existed[17]. That wasn't even going to be done until the discovery of the transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of longevity traits from grandparent to grandchild in 2007[18]. It wouldn't even be that controversial to claim homosexuality to be epigenetic. To quote from a study on epigenetic models. "Our model predicts that sperm from the fathers with one or more [homosexual] daughters will differ from those with only heterosexual daughters by carrying unique (or statistically differentiated) epi-marks that influence the later stages of the androgen signaling pathway of the brain, or their expression is restricted to a subset of brain tissue, including sexually dimorphic nuclei that influence sexual orientation"[19] My opponents objection to my siafu comparison now appears to hinge on homosexuals choosing not to procreate with the opposite sex vs siafu not choosing. Claiming homosexual have a choice is a bold unsupported claim. A simple check of the most current evidence shows an interesting correlation. Gay women have a asymetrical brains like straight men, and gay men have symmetrical brains like straight women[20]. It appears the evidence suggests that sexuality isn't exactly a choice. I might agree that it is a choice if we were debating bisexuality, but we're not. Con hasn't been clear about what specifically he objects to with the occurrence of adoption, and insists that it is somehow "rare". The evidence shows that the occurrence of double orphans is hardly rare, and that we are just one natural or man made disaster away from being overwhelmed. Now Con appears to be claiming that homosexual relatives wouldn't adopt. Lets look at the evidence. The Administration for Children & Families shows that adoption by family is the prefered option for adoption in the US[21]. If con is attempting to claim that homosexuals wouldn't adopt. Then Con would have to explain why the homosexual community continues to fight to have, and keep their adoption rights[22]. If adoption didn't fulfil a biological, or psychological need then they wouldn't be fighting to keep it. In regards to the question to why aren't homosexuals just sterile it becomes simple logic. If someone were born heterosexual, but barren much of my argument would still apply to them. However, they have the cost of potentially occupying an otherwise fertile partner. A better question would be why aren't they asexual like Sir Isaac Newton[23]. That is easily addressed by looking at the difficulties single parents have in our societies. Of the three possible options homosexual adoption by a relative ensures the highest rate of success, and doesn't lock up any individuals intended for procreation. Con is wrong about the purpose of evolution. If evolution solely optimized for quantity multiple births would represent the majority of natural births, and women would have more than two breasts. As it stands over 95% of all births are singles for humans[24]. This is because humans are optimized for quality of children over quantity[25]. Because humans are optimized for quality any loss is devastating when compared to a species that is optimized for quantity, like rats. If having a homosexual child helps as insurance the survival of the grandchildren against natural, and manmade disasters then they are a natural, and essential part of the evolutionary process. Thank you, and I welcome my opponents final response. [15] http://www.princeton.edu... [16] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [17] http://genesdev.cshlp.org... [18] http://www.pbs.org... [19] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... [20] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [21] https://www.childwelfare.gov... [22] http://abcnews.go.com... [23] http://www.nndb.com... [24] http://www.cdc.gov... [25] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...