Homosexuality in Humans is Natural

On the surface it may appear that by the virtue of choosing the definitions I have painted myself into a corner. After all the basis of evolution is propagate ones genes successfully for the next generation. Someone who is homosexual, and not bisexual, wouldn't be likely to have children if they adhered to their homosexual desires. Obviously this should create a selective pressure for micro-evolution, for creationists, or macro-evolution, for evolutionists, and thus should represent a small fraction of the population. Lets take genetic disease, like cystic fibrosis, as an example. CF is in about 70,000 children and adults worldwide[1]. With a world population of nearly 7 billion CF represents about 0.001% of the world population. In the US it occurs in about 1 in 3400 births or 0.029%[4]. Contrasted with homosexuality that represents anywhere from 1% to 10% of the population[2]. Clearly, homosexuality isn't being weeded out by Natural Law, and for that reason it appears, on the surface, to violate Natural Law. However, this is only the case when you look at evolution as only affecting individual, and not a group, evolution. Lets take ants as an example, specifically the siafu. Nearly all workers, and soldiers are sterile. None of them will ever breed, or pass on their individual genetic information. However, all of those sterile ants exist to to preserve the queen, and find that suicidal sausage fly that will fly into their horde to have its wings ripped off so that it can mate with their queen[3]. It is to the queens evolutionary advantage to have a large number of sterile children so that the group may live. This is called social evolution, and is a part of the evolutionary process. So there is a case to be made were homosexuals who don't have children may actually be a natural part of the evolutionary process in spite of the fact that they would not, under normal conditions, breed. Looking back at the rate of homosexuality it is highly probably that most people have a homosexual relative either in their immediate, or extended, family. Lets take a probably situation a family might experience. In the unfortunate event that one of the sets of parents dies leaving behind orphaned children, what would be the best solution to ensure those children survive? If one of the dead parents had siblings who themselves had their own children to take care of they might be able to, but at the risk of their own direct children not be as likely to survive due to a lack of resources to care for all of them. You could leave the childrens fate up to chance where the State may, or maynot, be able to find adequate care. However, a more optimal solution would be for one of those parents to have a homosexual sibling who has no children of their own. The children would then be kept within the family, and not pose an excess burden on the survival of existing children. It becomes the best interest of the Grandparents that a few of their children are homosexual to help ensure the survival of their Grandchildren. Thus homosexuality is in coherence with Natural Law, and not unnatural. [1] . http://www.cff.org... [2] . http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... [3] Holldobler, Bert; Wilson, Edward O. (1990). The Ants [4] . http://www.thoracic.org...