nemesis_juggernaut
But isn't there? Since the entire theory of evolution is based on sexual selection, what purpose would it serve nature to select a specie that does not have the desire to reproduce?
Two things here. First evolution has no purpose it merely has outcomes. Second the species does not lack the desire to reproduce. The sexual expression of a human being is not aligned with the requirement of reproduction for species survival. The sexual desire is a manifestation of the circuitry of the brain as a consequence of the manner in which that wiring proceeds. If ,in homosexuals, that wiring is slightly different from the larger majority of heterosexuals all this means is that the wiring can proceed in another direction since there is nothing to prevent it.
That begs the question: If nature, having no mind or will, does not intend for homosexuality, rather, that it simply happened, couldn't we reasonably view homosexuals to be inferior in evolutionary terms?
Inferior is a rather loaded word don't you think? Disadvantaged in evolution is not even correct either since there is no reason at all why homosexuals cannot raise children. Evolution does not care if you reproduce or not as an individual. All that is required for success in evolution is a continuation of the species. Hell, evolution does not care for species or even families thanks to natural selection.