You are confusing genetic mutations with genetic defects. Genetic variations are constantly occurring. Some are good, some are bad, and some just are. Scientists are still trying to uncover how and why sexual genetic disorders occur.<quoted text>
Well, KiMare, if being homosexual is a defect, then so is having any other skin color than black, any other eye color than brown, or any other hair color than black. Science has come a long way in DNA study and has traced the origin of ALL living humans back to a small tribe in Africa. We started there, and spread out all over the world. Any variation from what they look like is a genetic change from how they are, so to be different from them is to be as you say, a defect. Only 1% of the world population has red hair http://www.myredhairgene.com/ and only 10% of the population is left handed... those numbers are similar to the percentage of homosexuals which is around 2% to 4%. If you look at the natural variations that have happened to humans as we have spread out and populated the world, wouldn't it be safe to say that homosexuality is one of those natural variations?
Evolution determines which mutations increase, and which decrease. Homosexuality appears extremely consistent over time. That indicates it is a naturally occurring mutation, but that it has no purpose. The aspect of defect comes in at this point. The basis of evolution is that a genetic strain increases by reproduction. This requires two things; 1. The ability to reproduce, and 2. The desire to self reproduce. Homosexuality fails on the second count. A MAJOR defect. Your response will be that gays can manufacture reproduction. First, that is a recent development that does not address thousands of years of consistent presence. Second, homosexuality shows up independently.
Now step back. You left the transgendered hanging in the wind. The severity of their situation leaves them undefendable. Because homosexuality is less severe, that exempts them from being a defect? Not reasonable or fair.