Homosexuality is quite unnatural!

Hello everyone, Mick. Id likely to formally apologize for any lack of insight in terms of grammar as I am not a born English speaker, nor do I live in a English speaking country. Please be patient with me, but I will do my utmost to make this readable and interesting. For one to conclude that homosexuality is not natural, they must conclude that it is harmful to the species, or at at the very least it is not in anyway beneficial and thus at the least a random occurrence that may happen within the population for no perceivable reason, a fluke of nature. Lets begin with delving into the perception that for one to be valuable to society, one must be able to conceive a child. Human society, as our intelligence grew, so did its complexity. We shook off the shackles of "Shelter, Food, Mate" as absolute concerns as the health of the society as a whole became as important as that of the individual. The first main subject of my debate: Menopause. Menopause is very unique in the animal kingdom to have with any significant length of life occurring afterwards. In fact its only witnessed in three species that we know of in all of the animal kingdom - Killer Whales and Pilot Whales, that are both actually Dolphin species and have very evolved social interactions - and humans. Why would this exist so rarely, amongst three species, one of which has only a evolutionary connection to the other two via ungulates (hoofed animals), with their latest known branching from each other going as far back as 100 million years back? It seems counter-intuitive to evolution, a dominant genetic phenomenon that stops the families of the species from being able to give birth only 2/3rds into the length of a life cycle, causing them to be a drain on resources while clearly not being able to offer as much physical work as the younger of the species. While I will touch on it far less, lets also bring into account human man's plummeting sperm count and ability to copulate as they grow older, with it happening long before life expectancy brings them to an age where they are not beneficial to society. The answer, upon close inspection, is simple enough. The more sophisticated a species becomes, the more irrelevant the basic approach to tribal existence becomes. It is not about simply pushing out numbers, but about giving the society added safety nets to nurture the ones that are already alive. Elders become important, irregardless of their ability to bear children. In fact, in all three species it is the elders, the ones without the ability to breed, that lead. Often they will take it upon themselves to aid society much more openly as they no longer have children that must be the focus and goal of their lives, and so the well being of the society becomes that focus, making these creatures that are unable to breed crucial to the well being of the whole. Homosexual couples could fill many holes, such as foster parents, gay men would be able to focus more on hunting and protection of the community, and gay women would be able to better serve the community, which is especially important in old tribal settings where starvation was not uncommon. It meant there was someone putting effort directly into the existing group without taking anything out for her own offspring, and as you may know, women gathered far more food then the men in prehistoric times, prior to farming. Lets go further into the aspect of breeding. If there are 100 men in a group and 5 women, the group will still be able to only bear around 5-8 children annually at very best. If there are 100 women and 5 men, they would be able to produce over a 100 children a year in healthy circumstances. Therefor if homosexuality would be a evolutionarily planned occurrence, rather then a socially unfeasible random one, then it would make logical sense that homosexuality would less problematic to the society were it more male based. Enter - bisexuality. Its long been studied that women are far more likely to be bisexual then men, in turn meaning that when necessary to expand on population due to the ravages of nature, women are more likely able to maintain a single sex relationship and breed with a male for the good of the community (source listed at the end). That seems far more likely to be a benefit then random. Lastly, id like to talk about 'abominations'. For a non-religious person you use a very negative critical world created by religion in order to shame those that do not sit into what western society deemed appropriate. Its a telling sign of bias even at the claim that your are accepting. Furthermore, you are comparing Homosexuality which causes no ill affects on health to Incest which does, severely, and cannibalism, which is the main culprit of diseases caused by Prions - Mad Cow Disease, Scrappy, and human Kuru. It is outright offensive to compare something you do not agree with to harmful acts, when there is nothing harmful about it. It is the same as when the religious compare it to pedophilia or necrophilia. It is the very height of intellectual absurdity. That is my argument. Once again, my apologies for an inconsistencies with my English.