Quote Originally Posted by saitenyo View Post

I think this is open to debate. We find homosexuality occurring naturally in many species, enough that one might argue there is some biological purpose for it (even though we may not know what this is yet). There have been many theories about it, ranging from population control to its role in social arrangements in large families with many sons. Natural order does not necessarily dictate that all members of a species should behave or function in the same way simply because the majority do. By that logic you could argue that in a species where, say, females vastly outnumbered the males, all members of the species ought to be female. Obviously that would be absurd as there is still a biological purpose for the males even if their numbers were fewer.

From an evolutionary perspective, the "natural order" is only really concerned with what traits allow a species to continue. Homosexuality doesn't interfere with this in any way since A-It doesn't automatically preclude those members of the species from reproducing (some still do via egg/sperm donation) and B-Small numbers of a species not reproducing is not detrimental to the survival of the species as a whole, and may even be beneficial to aid against overpopulation or allow for more available caretakers of orphaned offspring.
I was trying to fairly represent an argument that I don't support with two or three sentences. Ethical natural order and evolutionary natural order are two different subjects. One is a theory of moral dilemma, one is a matter of science -- they may often overlap, but they focus on two different things.