But your argument, which I am responding to here, attempted to condemned sexual actions that are not conducted for the purpose of reproduction and you specifically accuse homosexuals of being driven towards sex for what you consider to be the "wrong" reasons. If it doesn't matter why'd you bring it up? If it does matter then fine, but doing it has no connection with homosexuality therefore does not belong in the conversationIt doesn't matter "why" a person may or may not seek out sexual activity in a heterosexual context. It still results in reproductive outcomes in the vast majority of circumstances, regardless of whether a person intends for it to do so or not, simply because that is the nature of the act.
The majority of sex I've had in my life, and I'll bet the majority of healthy (mentally) people in this country, has not been for the purpose of reproduction. It's because it feels good on every conceivable level. So again, it this represents a subversion to you fine, but it is not an exclusively homosexual one so again it does not belong in the conversationHomosexuality subverts this to no productive end.
Again, there is no goal. That implies that a specific outcome was selected and humans were engineered in a premeditated way to achieve that outcome. This is not the case. All outcomes result from pure chance and that outcome either does or does not benefit us or facilitate our survival.The "goal" is the survival and propagation of one's species. Individuals with adaptations which are best suited to that goal survive, thrive, reproduce, and therefore pass such adaptations on to the next generation..
So whatAt best, homosexuality would appear to be a recessive trait, which essentially "piggy backs" onto some combination of genes possessed by the homosexual individual's parents. At worst, it might very well be a birth defect caused by something going wrong during gestation (a fetus of one developmental sex being exposed to an overabundance of opposite sex hormones while still in the womb, for instance).
who described it as a "useful" adaptation?Either way, describing it as being a "useful" adaptation is a bit of a stretch
That's a sticky mess isn't it. As long as an "abnormal" behavior isn't hurtful to anyone who is non-consenting, why should we care.That depends. What kind of behaviors are we talking about here?
10 Surprising Health Benefits of SexWhich is?
lol. seriously? Based on what?Yes.
Life is chaos Gath. Get over yourself.I see no intrinsic value in "diversity" which cannot be shown to serve a useful purpose. In this case, it only causes unnecessary problems and personal hardship.
You said they should be cured. I suggest that judging the hardship created by whatever condition one may have is best left to person living with it.How are you going to "judge" the way you were born after the fact?
It's a bit late in the game for complaint at that point. :lol