Why compare homosexuality to autism? Why not to having red hair or being very tall?
Because having red hair or being very tall has nothing to do with one's drive to to engage in procreation. Homosexuality does.
As the article mentioned there may be other reasons for it that make it evolutionarily advantageous. First, it could be kinship selection: roles fulfilled by homosexuals promote survival of species. Second, it could be linked to another advantage: gene is mutated leads to homosexuality but promotes survival under another condition.
This is all very vague and based on what "could be". There is really no specific, concrete evidence to support either scenario.
Finally, gays and lesbians can still have children, biologically.
Anatomically speaking, sure. But their sex drive is not geared toward reproduction. As I said before, any species in nature whose sexuality is directed toward the same sex will go extinct within one generation. Recent technological advancements in artificial insemination still don't argue against the abnormality of the gay sex drive.
I guess my point is how do you define normal? Something may not seem normal at some point in human history (red haired people were discriminated against, interracial couples were not considered normal) but over time can gain acceptance.
These common analogies are based more on political correctness than anything else. Red haired people and interracial couples, if straight, are still driven to pass on their genes and propagate the species. And to be clear, my definition of "normal" here is strictly from a biological point of view and not a moral or social one. Since sex drive is one of the basic instincts directly related to survival of a species, biology is the most relevant judging criteria.
If you are making a biological argument then it I think it is incorrect to group homosexuality with diseases.
Not really. People often say that since people can be born gay and that it can't be cured then it must be normal. Well, many disorders fit that exact description. What is really not correct is the emotional comparison of homosexuality to race, height and other such traits, as none of those interfere with a person's drive to reproduce.
The ultimate goal of every aspect of evolution has been to increase the odds of survival and reproduction. All the things we find aesthetically pleasing in a sex partner are directly related to their suitability in making an offspring even though we may be completely unaware of it. Women tend to find strong men "sexy" because physical strength is indicative of health and good genes and the ability to protect the woman and child. Men tend to find big breasts visually exciting because breast development signals that the woman is fertile and able to bear children. Once we understand the underlying evolutionary principle behind sex drive, all logic will point to the fact that homosexuality is a disorder, even if it's not "sinful" or "immoral".
Roger that. and I don't believe we could call the existence of worker Bees as biological failure. As you mentioned (paragraph below) they contribute in different manner to survival of their specie than just passing genes. Just like a LGBT.
But how, Rasoul jan? The worker bees have very specific and crucial roles in a bee colony, to the point that without them the colony wouldn't survive. Can we say the same about Gays? What specific role do they play that can't be performed by straight people?
Jury is still out on that. We use our own criterion to call the condition anomalous or a disorder. Until we figure out exactly why nature does it I personally will not call it abnormal or a disorder, until then I'll call it exceptional.
But we
have figured out the basic principles governing sex drive. I went into more detail about that in my reply to Arash.
Does a homosexual have an option of not being gay?
Does a person with autism or any other disorder have an option to not have it?
As I said we are using our own yard stick (science) to call the condition unnatural, in that case (using science) monogamy which is widely accepted as natural thing becomes unnatural, because in accordance with the same science (biology) a woman is designed to have multiple sexual partners in a single setting, its why it takes her longer to satisfaction and why the uterus and its motion during orgasm plays such an important role in pregnancy. It is attempting to dip into a pot of mixed sperms.
Monogamy may not be natural, but it has actually been devised to help with the survival of species by creating a stable environment for raising children. This has a lot to do with the fact that unlike most other animals, human children don't become self-sufficient until many years after birth. It's for the same reason that human females also evolved to engage in casual sex - To provide the male an incentive to stay around and help raise the child.