Genes don't "want" anything. They aren't "interested" in anything. As you say, they're not "aware" of anything. Ants didn't get an "idea" of a queen. All of that is ascribing human motives to animals incapable of them.
Homosexual behaviors don't function to produce offspring. This does not make them wrong, it means that they do not have that function. What is the evolutionary function of homosexuality? Hell, I have no idea, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one.
A great many natural behaviors don't function for reproduction or survival, but that does not make them "wrong". Honeybees will sting animals percieved as threats, in the process killing themselves. This is a behavior that does not promote survival or reproduction but does aide in propagation of the species
Quote:
|
Please understand, there is no species thinking by your genes, they are only interested in themselves.
|
There is no thinking of any kind by genes, they aren't interested in anything. They carry information. If the information they carry produces in the organism of which they are a part a behavior or characteristic that promotes survival and reproduction, they're more likely to be passed on and thus increase in prevalence in the species. If they don't, they're less likely to do so. There's no motivation of any kind.
Right and wrong don't come into it.
Quote:
|
The whole concept of homosexuality is, as i previously said, because of the fact we have minds to understand our behaviours.
|
Sure. The same is true of all concepts, they exist due to the ability of the human mind to conceptualize and categorize qualities and characteristics and behaviors. The fact of homosexuality, however, that some animals mate with others of the same sex, exists independant of whether we can conceptualize it, whether we understand its origin or function. Not promoting reproduction does not equate to "wrong."
Gilda