Homosexuality in Humans is Natural

Rebuttal:"To fully understand the evolutionary process one must know what determines a trait to be a desirable trait, or not. This is simple because the only traits that are desirable are traits that help to ensure the survival of offspring[5]. Con's mistake with the evolutionary process is to assume that selection is in a straight line from parent to child, and excludes social evolution sometimes called kin selection."-Con is being incredibly hypothetical. Furthermore, Con has committed a logical fallacy known as Cherry Picking, in which Con is pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. [5] I did not in any way assume that selection is in a straight line from parent to child. I am an AP Biology student, so I am aware of kin selection. I would like to remind Con that while kin selection is not neccessarily in a straight line from parent to offspring, it is the only known example of kin selection in humans. Con's suggested theory of kin selection in which selection is not neccessarily from parent to child has not been found in humans.[6][7] To make such a controversial claim, Con must provide adequate sources. While Con has provided many sources, none of them supports Con's suggested theory of kin selection within humans. -Furthermore, for your theory to work, you are assuming that homosexuality is inherited and genetic, which is also a very controversial claim lacking in evidence. "The siafu comparison is apt for illustrating social evolution. Siafu workers are analogous to homosexual humans because both under normal circumstances will not breed, and both provide advantages for survival of the next generation. Queens and sausage flies are comparable to parents of homosexuals in that they're predisposed to have a percentage of their offspring that would not breed, but provide benefits for the survival of the group."-As mentioned previously, the saifu workers are not analogous to homosexuals because they are sterile, whereas homosexual humans are generally fertile. There is a difference between not being able to reproduce and choosing not to reproduce. You cannot compare humans with ants.-I see where you are getting at, but there is a huge flaw in your theory. If that is the goal of homosexuality, then wouldn't it be more efficient for Con's so-called understanding of "Epigenetics" to make people infertile rather than homosexuals? I request an answer."The claim that double orphans are rare is unfortunately false. It may appear at this moment in time in countries like the US, but this is hardly the case worldwide. Roughly 10% of the world's 1.9 billion children are orphans, and 10% of these are double orphans leaving 1% of the worlds children as double orphans [7][8][9]. That 1% is hardly spread evenly, and is concentrated in war torn, and diseased areas. Making it far greater than 1% for those areas. Events like the firebombing of Tokyo[10], Vietnam War[11], various tsunami's[12][13], and the 1918 pandemic flu have a tendency to leave a large amount of double orphans. Rare, in cons view, is highly subjective, and lacks the perspective of human history."-Con has completely ignored half of my comment and used the other half to support his own comment. No where in the above quoted text has Con mentioned how many of these children has homosexual relatives who would take care of them.======================================================================================Addendum:-I would like to remind Con that the purpose of evolution is also to produce as much offspring as possible in the future in accordance with our population's carrying capacity. [8]-Con claims that homosexual members of mankind would aid in other childrens survival, so they are not unnatural because they do not fight against the principle that organisms are most concerned with propagating their own species. -However, nevertheless, it would be more advantageous to the human species for them to be heterosexual rather than homosexual children because the assumption that heterosexual children will grow up to produce more children is more likely than the assumption that homosexual children will take care of others.Sources:5. http://en.wikipedia.org...(fallacy)6. http://www.princeton.edu...7. http://en.wikipedia.org...8. http://www.princeton.edu...