Posit for me please an independant natural value for homosexual behavior.
I do not, nor do I believe anyone credibly can.
However, I can consider the possiblity that root sexual orientation might derive from the expression of many independent genes.
Individual mutations of these genes which are either not expressed, not harmful, or beneficial would be inherited by filial generations, perhaps as recessives, perhaps as dominants.
I am positing that it is POSSIBLE that the (as I called it earlier) COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE phenotype (homosexuality) only results from the combination of several of these atypical variant independent genes.
It does not seem to me in the slightest implausible that a gene might cause people who carry it (whether male or female) to be unusually-strongly attracted to females; while this would likely reduce reproductive success rates for females with the gene, it might increase it for males sufficiently to offset the reduction in females.
It is also not implausible that another gene might cause attraction toward males, again with similar (but sex-reversed) consequences.
"Posit for me please an independant natural value for homosexual behavior."
Homosexuality might have provided a sexual outlet for males because of a scarcity of females, or males at the bottom of the society. Starting out, more men are born than women (105 men for every 100 women). When you factor in delibrate female infanticide and polygamy, women might have been in short supply in some ancient societies. But I guess this is a societal "value", not natural.
I am in no way advocating homosexual behavior. I think it is sick.