I understand you, but I keep on thinking it's a right biological point of view. Nature always doesn't make the things right. Sometimes we have children given birth without arms, legs or with some discapacity or wrong deformation. Yeah, they are on earth, and they must be loved as any other human being. They must not be discriminated also. But that was not the original plan of nature for them. Nature wanted to enable them with full extremities, with full capacities, to be able to live in this ecosystem. I don't think those ants are the same thing than an homosexual human being. Sorry if I am being to unpolitically correct, but I usually talk clear as the fairly waters.Moonbear said:Actually, that's not a very good "biological" point of view. From a biological point of view, one recognizes that non-reproducing individuals in a social species can be highly advantageous. Consider colonies of ants. Only one female reproduces, the queen, the rest are workers that help care for the eggs and larvae and ensure the best chance of survival of those offspring. The same in bee colonies. The same occurs with other social mammals where one dominant female bears the litters and the other females and subdominant males are more like "aunts" and "uncles" that can provide a group effort in raising offspring rather than everyone having to manage to take care of their own. Considering how much effort and energy must be put into raising a human child from infancy to independent adulthood, having members of our society who are non-reproductive yet still feel a desire to nurture those young is beneficial. One doesn't even need to be gay to be non-reproductive. I'm quite straight, and love being around children, but if I never reproduce, I'll be quite content to lavish my nephew with all my love, or perhaps to adopt a child that a heterosexual couple
produced yet was not sufficiently fit to raise.