The simple answer is no.
It's common for a lot of people to talk about traits being good for the species. However, in the overwhelming majority of cases, evolution does not care what is good for a species. Instead, it favors any genetic variant which does a relatively better job at making additional copies of itself compared to the other variant versions. If there were some sort of genetic predisposition to homosexuality --- the majority of the research says there's not, though there is still some question about a specific region on the X chromosome contributing to gay men (Xq28 to be exact) -- individuals with that predisposition would on average have fewer children and grandchildren than those without it, and so selection would make that predisposition rarer and rarer and rarer, until it was so rare that selection wouldn't be able to detect it. That would be a frequency in humans of less than 1 in 10,000 on most chromosomes, or less than 1 in 6,600 on the X chromosome. In reality, it looks like about 1 in 20 men is gay (the 1 in 10 number from the Kinsey study appears to have been overinflated by his study's inclusion of the prison population, where sex between men is more of a function of the lack of women than of preference on the part of the men).
Things that benefit the group, but at a cost to the individual, are not evolutionarily stable because they are open to cheating. If you have a village with 100 families, and each agree to have just 2 children, the population will be pretty stable. Now imagine that a single individual has a mutation that causes them to ignore the agreement and have 3 kids. Now, 3 of the 201 children come from that cheater, and half of them (1.5 on average) will have that genetic variant. 1.5 out of 201 is bigger than 1 out of 200, so the mutation is spreading. And it will continue to spread, even as the village runs out of food, until such a point when individuals with that variant average no more children than individuals without that variant; say, for example, the other villagers learn to recognize the variant ones and refuse to have kids with them.
The only circumstance in which you can have selection at the level of a group overpower this selection at the level of the individual is when a) members of the group are drastically more closely related to each other than to individuals outside of the group, and b) only a small subset of the group is capable of reproducing, and then only with the assistance of the rest of the group. Cases of this include multicellularity (which is why your liver doesn't try to make new copies of itself, but leaves it up to the testicles to reproduce the entire body in a new offspring), and a few types of insect colonies. Even in these cases, that balance can break down, and sadly does fairly often: cancer is essentially a given cell breaking the deal and deciding to keep reproducing itself despite the harm it does to the rest of your body, and the fact that it will ultimately kill itself.
Nature does not care about the future. The reasons why populations of most species tend to be stable over the long run are much less benign than homosexuality. In general, when a population gets too large, one or more of the following things happen:
a) Individuals run out of food and starve to death;
b) Whatever predators the species have themselves become more abundant, and consequently eat more of the prey;
c) A disease sweeps through the population, due to more crowding and lower average health levels from lack of nutrition, higher stress, and lower sanitation.
If you're interested in a popular book that helps you learn about why evolution acts on individuals, rather than on groups, try The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.