“its pretty stupid to defend the perversion that is homosexuality while attacking people who get aroused by animals,”
No, not really. Homosexuality Need NOT violate consent. Just two consenting adults. Not that different from heterosexuality.
Bestiality, though, cannot be acted upon without violating consent.
It’s like saying its pretty stupid to defend the perversion that wins money at poker while attacking people who get money from bankrobbing.
"dead bodies,”
Aside from the health risks associated with necrophilia, it’s really difficult to get consent post mortem. And even if they said, “After i’m gone, feel free,’ there’s always at least a posisbility that they changed their mind in the interim.
"etc. or people who enjoy eating other's feces”
Who’s attacking them? Odd, though, that you lump coprophilia with homosxuality and nerophilia. But, you now, as long as they draw the blinds and use breath mints, shouldn’t be that much of a problem.
“if you think about it, there ARE creatures that live solely off another's feces, yet there has yet to be a strictly "homosexual species"”
Not true. The New Mexico Whiptail lizard comes to mind.
"(hermapherditic animals dont count since they have both body parts)”
But you were talking about ATTRACTION, not reproduction.
A hermaphroditic species could possibly all desire the female traits of the individuals they mate with. not sure how we’d ever know, but it’s not impossible.
“this means that homosexuality is vastly MORE DYSFUNCTIONAL than coprophagia (eating bodily waste)”
No, it doesn’t. Your premise is faulty, your conclusions are stupid, and i think you worked backwards from the stupid to the faulty.
