DEATH wrote:That does raise another question which I fear may be taken badly:
What is the (Biologically speaking) point of homosexuals if they can't breed on their own?
If a group of men ended up without women, or vice versa, their sexuality wouldn't really matter. As it stands, homosexuals aren't automatically infertile, and currently many have families before they come out.
They do contribute to the breeders, though. Imagine there'd just been a catastrophe in caveman land, a volcano erupted or something. If you had a group of survivors, 5 of whom were gay, even with the scarcity of food or whatever, you would have 5 hunters/fighters/foragers that aren't going to make the situation worse by producing more children. If they have a straight brother, their shared genes will get passed on anyway.
There are situations in which not breeding is a good thing, lots of old civilisations also appear to have benefited from same sex contributors, as do some social structures in our nearest evolutionary cousins. I seem to recall the Spartans used to encourage homosexuality, because the men, in love with each other, would fight harder against their enemies. I might be wrong on that, though.
I realize that this question might sound harsh/Bigoted/Fundamentalist's and I certainly would never claim that Homosexuals have no right to live (They have every bit a right as a heterosexual etc'), but I would like to ask it.
Biology isn't purposeful, so when it throws out different sexualities, perhaps even detrimental ones, (bestiality and paedophilia, for instance) that don't pass on their genes, there's nothing to prevent it happening again since sexuality is not reducible to genes alone, and if it were, we couldn't prevent those mutations.
Yet how de we know if those are our "natural" responses or those bought about due to a mutation (A paedophile no doubt feels pleasure when committing an act, yet the chances of them breeding are relatively lower and it is against the breeding/spreading "function").
Mutations are natural, nature is irrelevent to morality; remember, how something is is not necessarily how it ought to be. Judging what impulses to follow is where morality and society comes in. People choose not to have children if they carry the cystic fibrosis gene, for instance, we have ultimate responsibility, not unthinking natural processes.
Then what is the goal that drives you on?
There's not really anything better to do.
Why keep living and striving if say you suddenly couldn't father any more children? [(For example) following the "Breeding" as the basic physical imperative]
Because I am not a robot that slavishly does what my genes tell me, humans evolved brains that can override genetic commands. Our genes would be horrified if they were aware.
I know that I wouldn't kill myself even if that were somehow the case, so is our "natural" (I.E the way we evolved) Goal to breed and enjoy ourselves?
Enjoyment evolved to make us seek, pain evolved to make us avoid.
Why do we enjoy reading or other cerebral sports so much then?
Human brains enjoy taking in information, that lust for information is probably what set our ancestors apart from the monkeys. They'd be curious, they'd spot buzzards circling, for instance and wonder why, track them down and get extra meat in the diet, which would lead to a means of supporting bigger brains that were more curious, and so on down the generations.
I apologize if I may be very unclear.
I'm not really trying to argue with anyone's personal philosophies just voicing some of the thought that's I've had on this subject while debating it with a friend or a point that he raised (For example what should be our goal if not breeding or alternately [on a "higher" level] simple pleasure/pain
People are only really responsible for their own personal goals, you make them yourself and hope you're right. Nobody really knows because such purpose is not inherent in existence any more than we get a choice whether we're born or not.
.
, I mean what would you say is the evolutionary/natural purpose for a living being, that is what are it's imperatives and what are our imperatives. 
