Homosexuality in Humans is Natural

BeforeI begin my argument, I would like to announce that I have nothing against homosexuals, I am simply playing devil's advocate. I would also like to remind Pro that his resolution claims that homosexuality supports evolution in humans, therefore arguments that are irrelevant to evolution are invalid.================================================================================Response to Pro's Anecdote on Ants-The use of the ant species for comparison is invalid because the topic at hand concerns humans, and not ants. Furthermore, this example is irrelevant to the issue of homosexuality. In round 1, Pro defined homosexuality as "the state of being sexually attracted to the same sex." I doubt that the male ants that are sterile are homosexual, and if they are, Pro has the burden of proof. Sterility and homosexuality are two very separate things. Just because many male ants are sterile does not mean they are sexually attracted to each other. Therefore this anecdote is invalid.-Furthermore, there is generally only one sexually reproducing female in an ant colony, which can consist of several million ants. And that is the queen ant. The queen ant can lay thousands of eggs each day. [1] [2] Female humans on the other hands, cannot produce as much offspring. This a very huge difference.Therefore this anecdote is invalid. Response to Pro's Anecdote on Humans:-Pro has provided an example in which homosexuality can result in the survival of certain individuals of the human population who were unfortunate enough to be orphans due to the deaths of their parents. In this example, Pro has clearly forgotten the main concepts of the theory of evolution. Allow me to explain.-The theory of evolution is based off of the idea of Natural Selection [3] and mutations [4]. In Pro's example, Pro has ignored the concept of Natural Selection. Natural Selection states that over time, organisms become more and more fit and adaptable to their environment. This is because organisms of a species with undesireable traits that does not support their survival in the environment eventually die off, leaving those with traits that support their survival. For an example, if there was a species of bugs in a forest, and half of them are red and half of them are green. Because the red bugs are more noticeable to predators, they are more often eaten than the green bugs, who's colors blend in with the colors of the forest well. Therefore, the green bugs survive and reproduce more than the red bugs. Over a long time, there will be no more red bugs because they will have been all hunted to extinction by predators before they could reproduce. This will leave only green bugs in existance. Therefore, according to evolution undesirable traits are not to be passed on. -If an organism were to die, it is possible that it died because it had some undesireable trait. This means that if it had children, they would also have those undesireable traits, and by increasing their rate of survival by having homesexual guardians, they are increasing the likelyhood of the children reaching adulthood and reproducing, which passes on the undesirable traits, which does not support evolution. -Furthermore, this example is very impractical and rare. Pro mentioned briefly that the percentage of homosexuals in the US range from 1% - 10%. However, Pro has not accounted that the percentage goes down when specifying homosexuals with orphaned family members who happened to have both their parents die and who happen to be children and just happened to not have anyone else available to raise them.*Therefore, Pro's example does not support evolution.Sources:1. http://lingolex.com...;2. http://www.antark.net...;3. http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...4. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...