Are we born to an evolutionary purpose?

I totally understand, and purely in the narrow religious sense, we are dealing with some sort of dualism, wherein some things which are otherwise completely human and part of our nature, are not desirable in certain context. I can imagine misconceptions, or more so, abuses, surrounding what we do upon finding real causes for behaviours...like I said, I have known addicts to play the blame game upon relapsing. Things like this are definitely true if they are part of a past need that is still with us in a time when we do have means of satiating ourselves in one way or another. It takes trial and error before we can determine what is 'good' for us now. Right, and this is pretty much where it could be contentious. If you only think about homosexuality, claiming 'natural' should not equate to desirable or advantageous right off the bat either. I am not thinking it is clearly undesirable right now, nor clearly advantageous. Somewhat neutral, or in an in-between state like when we excercised or smoked for leisure and were not sure that there were great benefits or risks to either.

In my view neither irrational religious convictions nor demonstrations of what is "natural" alone should define what we decide is right, wrong, desirable or advantageous in modern society. We are intelligent enough (hopefully) to come up with better and more inclusive methods of deciding those things.However understanding human nature may well guide us as to the extent to which it is possible in practice to construct reasonable laws and moral coes that we, as a species, are actually able to follow.In my view people should be free to do what they choose as long as they are not harming anyone else. That applies as much to homosexuality as it does to a preference for red wine over white. Regardless of either preference being due to genetic, cultural or a combination of the two reasons.Outlawing sexual relationships that hurt nobody is going to be a stupid law if the need and desire for mutually satisfying sexual relationships is so ingrained in human nature as to be effectively impossible to nullify on any realistic scale.Whether homosexuality is due to biology or not does not make it right or wrong. However if homosexuality is so ingrained in human nature as to be inevitable then any morality that excludes homosexual practices would seem to be doomed to conflict, hypocrisy and eventual failure. Thus making it a foolish and bad code of morality.As a counter example consider rape. If rape is natural does that make it right? A law system and moral code that protects people from being the victims of rape, regadless of how 'natural' or otherwise rape may be found to be is one that places the rights of the innocent individual above the natural urges of the rapist and is a perfectly viable code of morality. It may well not eradicate rape but it should reduce it through stigmatisation and punishment of rapists.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.