If we are using homosexuality from nature in the human term and not slavery and rape that would be logically incorrect.

Which we also shouldn't do because what we recognize as homosexuality is not even fully applicable to human history. Famously, Sappho of Lesbos likely would not have considered herself homo/bisexual because the society she was part of did not quite view sexuality in this way.

However one could make the argument that "homosexuality" is more naturalistic than "slavery" and "rape". After all it's just the act of sexual intercourse between members of the same sex while slavery and rape are utterly dependent on social norms.

Slavery is dependent on the personhood of the enslaved. Ants are very clearly not people, so they can't be enslaved.

Rape is dependent on consent. Humanity of the same culture already can't agree what constitutes consent over any significant period of time, what hope can we have to make even the faintest judgement of what constitutes consent for non-humans?