Exactly. And that is why I wrote “Here I mostly talk about male species, since a female one can be raped.” in the first comment.
You are welcome 
And thank you for telling me about the bedbugs. I didn’t know about this.
There’s also a lot of life out there that has evolved to require a third party to reproduce. Pretty much all flowers, for example, need some sort of pollinating insect to reproduce. If homosexuals are “disordered” because (some) of them need the help of a doctor to produce a child, doesn’t it then follow that all roses are similarly disordered, because they need a bee to spread their pollen?
They don’t really need a doctor, do they?
Not to be crude – well, not to be cruder than necessary – but from everything I’ve seen in jilted-ex movies, can’t a woman who wants to get pregnant just use what’s in the condom after a guy does his business in it?
In which case gay male plus masturbation can equal sperm donor, and sperm donor plus lesbian can equal pregnancy, and with no doctor needed, yeah? I mean, it’s not like they take it a step further, like the aforementioned priest and nun…
Of course, being the Dope, that begs the question - do bedbugs have not-procreative-just-for-fun sex? Are their bed bug hookup bars and BDSM clubs?
Nope. Bed-bugs know no love, even among themselves. For them, sex is only “traumatic insemination”, basically, getting stabbed in the gut by a sharp penis. It might be fun for the males (unless they get stabbed by another male, which apparently happens) but the females try to run away.
If you don’t mind, I’d like to explain where this question came from. I’m a Russian LGBT activist, do some risky stuff in regards to homophobia (here is one example, ask me if you want more), at some point I even had to leave Russia due to death threats. I was in South-East Asia for half a year and was busy turning American tourists into Bernie voters. Fun time. Now I’m planning a huge campaign which people around me think is a suicide. I’m going to rally around the whole Russia (including regions like Chechnya) with my new speech about homophobia: link redacted
I’m open to answer any of your questions. If it is not appropriate in this thread, I created reddit AMA.
I’ve edited out the funding link. One may not solicit funds on the SDMB without receiving prior permission.
And he’s probably the same kind of person who thinks that us spinsters are to be pitied 
Because either we were never able to catch us a man, or in our misguidedness we refused to jump with joy and faint from sheer happiness when one proposed marriage to us.
The whole premise is faulty. Sex is not just for procreation. If it were, the human women would go into heat when they were fertile, and not be sexually receptive at other time, not interesting to men at other time, due to the pheromones they put out.
This is what begging the question actually is. It’s an argument predicated on a faulty premise, that it the shored up with the conclusion itself.
In other words, sex is meant for producing children. Homosexuality is wrong because it doesn’t produce children. Heterosexual acts that in and of themselves don’t produce children are OK because some heterosexual acts do produce children. Homosexual people can engage in procreative activities, but they don’t “count” because homosexuality doesn’t produce children.
When I have accidentally gotten into arguments like these with people, they’ve usually gone the full circle, and said the the reason we know sex is for procreation is the homosexuals can’t procreate.
Right. Any woman who gets pregnant by having sex with a stranger in a bar is automatically a “normal” person and has the right to be a mother, but gays who go an incredible route to have children are abnormal and shouldn’t be allowed to procreate and be parents. Indeed, many anto-abortion people have told me that “gay parenting is child abuse.”
Are infertile people “abnormal”? Those who say marriage is to create children should be outraged that infertile people (especially post-menopausal women) are getting married.
Food’s main purpose is to keep us alive. Are fat people abnormal?
This is really the crux. The wide range of normal human behavior includes both non-procreative heterosexuals and non-procreative homosexuals.
Thinking otherwise is an error of fact, not of opinion.
It is a fact that Kinsey #6 homosexuals are relatively rare statistically speaking. So are Icelandic people with type AB blood.
Statistical rarity is not a valid marker for “disorder”. “Aberrant” might be appropriate in English except for the fact that it usually carries a pejorative connotation that’s not really properly part of the definition. That aberrant (heh:)) connotation is especially prevalent amongst people who’re uncomfortable with diversity of whatever nature.
Your friend is anthropomorphising biology. Reproduction is not the purpose of sex, it is its result. Similarly, individuals that do not leave offspring or species that go extinct have not “lost” at evolution any more than a meteor has lost at gravity or a log in a fire has lost at thermodynamics. Evolution is a process, not a game or a challenge: in itself, it has no goals against which success can be measured, and no judges to award points. The notion that going extinct sooner is bad and that going extinct later is good (all species go extinct in the end) is a purely human take on the matter.
And even if we accept the notion that evolution is something you can win at, the fact that homosexuals are still around must mean they aren’t losing.