Homosexuality defies the laws of nature.

"In general the more dominate the species the longer the life span. This is seen throughout nature. This is contrary to your argument that a shorter life spans is population control for dominate species. The argument you made about the rats shows how shorter life spans counter balance rapid reproduction not not species domination." The correlation is arbitrary. Trees and turtles have a much longer lifespan than humans do, but their reproductive methods are not as efficient. Rats, if they had a lifespan comparable to that of humans, would cover the entire earth and destroy all plant life by sheer numbers. It's all about reproduction speed. This goes on to the next point: "You have yet to prove how homosexuality would be beneficial to the human race. Controlling the human population might be beneficial to other organisms, but not to humans themselves." Humans number at 6 billion, and there will eventually be a great lack of resources because we use so much. Homosexuality allows a significant portion of the population to mate, but not contribute to overpopulation. "If your argument were true, and it was population control that normally laid dormant until it was needed, we would see more homosexuality in those areas where resources were scarce and population control was needed. Instead homosexuality tends to be more prevalent in more affluent areas; not exclusive to, but far more prevalent." That's not the way evolution works. Especially not in a trait as complex as homosexuality. If we were talking about resistance to heat or cold, it would be a different story and it would abide by all you have said about it affecting individuals prior to populations. From what we know about homosexuality, IF it is biological, it is a result of several genes working in correlation with environmental triggers. Thus, one must have the correct combination of genes AND be exposed to whatever environmental trigger that causes it. Statistically, homosexuality is not more or less prevalent in any area. This is to be expected because the human gene pool is very open, unbound by geographic factors. "You completely missed my point on psych/soc. Sociology can not take place without psychology. When I am saying this I am not referring to the study of, or getting a pre req out of the way, I am saying you can not have group thought without having individual thought. Just like you can not have species evolution or survival unless it starts on the individual level." Actually, no I didn't. I hit the nail right on the head. I just didn't explain my point thoroughly enough because I assumed you knew what I meant. You basically meant that to have a trait appear in a population, it must first occur in an individual. When I said that those subjects you mentioned required other things to exist, I was basically saying that prior to it appearing in a certain individual, there are OTHER requirements. Remember what I said about some traits being the result of a COMBINATION of genes that have mutated independently, possibly from other corners of the globe? Let's use an example of culture. A country's culture may very well be impacted by religious and philosophical ideas from far away, and the amalgamation because that country's culture. Similarly, before an individual can express a trait (homosexuality) I am saying that these mutations that make up the trait of homosexuality must have come into existence and SPREAD throughout the population, before meeting in an individual and giving it one of the prerequisites to express the trait. "The fact that homosexuality presents itself in these less superior and some endangered species feeds my argument that homosexuality is not a part of the process, but a defect. It would not be in the best interest of the species to have homosexuality present." First of all, the argument presented in relation to other animals is null. We don't define nature by what we believe nature is supposed to be. Thus, it's kind of strange to say that a phenomenon we see in nature is unnatural or "wrong" because of evolutionary theory (which happens to be a theory developed upon observation of nature). Nature doesn't contradict itself, it just is, by the definition of that word. There only exists room for this debate in terms of human homosexuality, which we can argue is an artificial or psychological thing. We can judge the norm of humans based on how we view ourselves. That is the scope in which this debate must occur. Simply speaking, human homosexuality does not defy the laws of nature in terms of evolution because it is contributing to the danger of extinction by overpopulation and exhaustion of resources. It is contributing to our survival.