[Politicalities]

First, you assume that homosexuals don't have children.

No, I assume that homosexuality is a reproductive disadvantage.

Second, you assume that there can be no advantage to a species in having non-reproducing individuals

No, I assume that evolution doesn't care a bit about "advantage to a species," it cares about the reproductive characteristics of an individual. Species don't pass on genes; individuals do. If you have a tendency to homosexuality, you are less likely to pass on your genes than an individual who has no such tendency. Evolutionary theory says that such tendencies should be gone in the blink of an eye.

Didn't you learn about the birds and the bees? Particularly the bees?

You mean the bees who are all genetically related to their queen?

[js1138]

Species don't pass on genes; individuals do.

Being homosexual is obviously a disadvantage, but disadvantages linger in any population because they can be paired with or associated with advantages. A lot of women like gay men, and it is women who do the mate selection.

[MHalblaub]

"No, I assume that homosexuality is a reproductive disadvantage."

That is the same problem as a Mr. Behe assuming something as complex. For a male homosexual offspring it is a reproductive disadvantage. But an Italian study showed that female offspring with the same genes are more fertile. So the genetic code itself has no disadvantage.