but if you mean something like "Individuals will still want to have children, and will therefore try to overcome their revulsion against heterosexual copulation",
No, I didn't mean that.
This is what you originally said:
<<This is similar to noting the need for compensatory strategies to deal with blindness or deafness lest the individuals affected suffer further harm, although the issue is not of the individual suffering harm, but of the preservation of the species. Thus, homosexual orientation retains the status of infirmity, while heterosexuality retains primacy as a necessary expedient to propagate..........>
Let me try again. If you want to assert that homosexuality is an infirmity like blindness, I think you can do so if for no other reason that compensation by the individual is required to produce children or that sexual activity of homosexuals often simulates the heterosexual by using tools. Since compensation is regularly made at the individual level for these things, your argument about compensation at the species level, namely extinction, is unnecessary.
Let me add that this is such a minor point that we've already spent too much effort on it, IMO. |
