I wouldn't say it's simplistic. Evolution and natural selection are outlined pretty clearly since Charles Darwin, look up reproductive success. I don't want to get caught up in such a discussion, but what if the genetic instinct of reproduction was higher than the instinct of homosexuality? That way the genes would survive.

Secondly, humans are a relatively young species, our evolution is not at an end. It might change in the future, but we'll never know. But that clashes with your claim that nature would have erased that behaviour. If it's not negative to a development of a species, then why isn't it more common? What if it's nature's way to prevent overpopulation?

Then next, if it's a behaviour like you said, then what's the proof that it's not based in human development during life? That would explain it more logically.

How can you say no negative repercussion, when it directly leads to no offspring?

Like I said, you can throw up tons of questions that way, but we won't get to the end of it through our discussion, so let's not endlessly go in circles.

That's not how nature works at all. There are many syndroms that occur in species for millions of years causing them to not grow older than 5, limit intelligence, albino's, allergies. Just look at all the syndroms we can have as a specie. Some of them very bad and they will never be erased from existence. Those are however very rare and dont occur often. DNA always mutates to new situations that doesn't mean it gets better each time just different. Many harmful mutations are statically speaking quite rare and most unharmful mutations remain in the DNA. For example my eyes being blue instead of brown is a mutation that caries for thousands of years. It's not positive or negative it just exists. Same as being gay just exists its neither positive or negative for a species as long as it's max 10% of the population.

Gay just exists as a random genetic disorder. Since reproduction and survival of the species is the true goal for any animal. The same still counts for humans biologically speaking. Being gay isn't really a positive or negative thing. Having said that I still would not refer to being gay as normal, which I simply base on statistics. The same way some other disorders as having a naevus or firemark/wine spot isn't normal but neither positive or negative. 

Sadly it's not my field so I tried to find some articles for you to research but I keep coming up with books you'd have to purchase or articles which are behind a paywall.  

Here're the links: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470800298X

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0xpi2NI-Dz4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=homosexual+animal+parenting&ots=YZ036gmhi3&sig=sGnzowXxfWc8_h4mxgt8_rqbHQw#v=onepage&q=homosexual%20animal%20parenting&f=false

That second one is apparently a book specifically on homosexuality in animals and how researchers have attempted to make sense of it in the context of evolution. Seems like the perfect read for your interests. 

Our species may be young but homosexuality has been found even on insects that had been here for hundreds of milions of years, what you know is the most simple concept of darwinian evolution, but in reality some factors are harder to point cause they aren't so obvious, there are many theories, like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsX2vfFNPak&t=10s. 

And no it doesn't seem to be a way to prevent overpopulation, homosexuality does not really reduce offspring in the animal species where happens and many of those species don't need any kind of population control.

I'm afraid you don't have a clue what you are talking about, we are talking about milions of years of evolution, any genetic disadvantage would dissapear in that period of time unless is extremelly rare and arbitrary, homosexuality is quite common, nature is telling you there is a reason why this happens the problem is the reasons are not obvious enough, to call homosexuality "random genetic disorder" is extremelly bolded looking at the data we have about how homosexuality works on other species. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I5N34Q1Bio

No you are not.

I'm gay and the act of a man and women is something I'm not interested in at all.

It's fine if you don't like looking at gay sex, you arnt gay lol

Thank you, I'll check it out.

What brings you to that assumption, that goes completely against any kind of logic.

Scientific sudies about the subject say it doesn't reduce the offspring of those animal species in which happens. Start looking those 2 videos I posted if you want to understand better the subject.

The basics of evolution is adapting not making something perfect or better. Being gay has no biological upside nor a downside. We have plenty of random genetic disorders, since it's not a perfect system. Nature isn't building a best possible or functioning ecosystem. It's trying to build one which is capable of survival. It's truly quite simple the same counts for albinos. We have plenty of species having an albino variance. Snakes, Mammals, Spiders which also exist for a long time. Even though these have a clear disadvantage in the wild since you can spot them more easily. Yet nature never found out how to erase albinos not even human albino's which are pretty much allergic to sunlight. Which is also a genetic disorder btw severe allergies. 

There are around 1500 species which are known to bw bisexual or gay. There are plenty of species more on this planet though. There are some species where being gay works. For other species it's just to have pleasure (Bonobo's) and a few rare instances where gay does increase fertility. However by almost every specie except dolphins and Bonobo's which hump nearly everything not every individual of a species is gay. 

The video you posted is highly speculative. And even so, cultural bias against homosexuality is recent, if you look at the whole development cycle of Homo sapiens sapiens. Even if it's just a genetic trait, like you claim it to be, it's not necessarily bound to other genes. By that you're implying that homosexuals are better than heterosexuals so much that other people find it desirable to reproduce with them. How about we just wait until scientists map the gay gene and then we'll see who's correct. ;)

First of all, There is a huge difference between something as common as the homosexuality and something as rare as being an albino (1 out of 20000 persons), when the anomaly is that rare is harder to be modified by nature and the fact that its so rare is already a hint that evolution doesn't really want it, but homosexuality is very common and we talk about milions of year and several massive extinctions where any disadvantage as common as the homosexuality would have dissapeared but the evolution keeps it at a good number.

The question is that the more studies are made about the subject, the more clear is that there is no apparent disadvantage, you are making a bad comparison here, an albino has a clear disadavantage, they have all kind of skin and visual problems, they get ill easily, homosexuality doesn't make you weaker against nature in any way and you keep your reproductive potential, in fact most animals with homosexual behaviours keep reproducing, including our species, even in ancient greece where homosexuality was the norm they still reproduce, through history homosexuals had families just like everyone, now they are less likely to do so but things like fecundation in vitro exists, and even when they don't reproduce they can still increase the reproductive potential of the species in other ways, there are tons of orphans around the world, homosexual couples that don't reproduce can take care of them increasing their chances in life, some theories says than when a potential is lowered (like the reproductive potential) other potentials may be increased, like social habilities, empathy, intelligence, etc A huge number of great artists and scientifics were gay, who knows if their sexual condition had something to do? Some theories say homosexual men tend to be better making bonds with other men as they tend to be more diplomatic and empathic that the average straight men, who knows if this was the reason of some important alliances in the past? There are many possibilities to explain why evolution does nothing to get rid of it, and still a lot to investigate.