Nope, it's a defect, just like limbs, just like triploblastic body shapes, just like lungs, gills, eyes, smell and a million other things that creatures use to survive on a daily basis. Every single one of them is a defect that has carried on until it divides that organism into a distinct species. That's how evolution works, and if you believe in Creation, it gets worse, because either God creates gay men (and women), or he makes mistakes.
So, in a way, homosexuality is a defect, but that does not neccesarily mean it is a bad or restrictive one, just like having limbs, eyes or intelligence. It's certainly not speceitic divider, it is not impossible for a Homosexual to breed, they merely choose not to (and considering the adoption debate, it's not that they have no urge to raise young). Once again, to refer to the animal kingdom, look at Bonobo monkeys, a society that is almost entirely bisexual, yet male/male or female/female sex serves no discernible purpose other than as a recreational or social past-time. What defines our own reaction to homosexuality is purely a social effect, just as we find Excess weight undesireable now, but a century ago, it was the preferred shape, I also wouldn't be surprised if societal pressure had a lot more to play in people being homosexual, rather than bisexual. Remember, monogomy is the accepted norm, so they can either be one or the other. There's this assumption that Gay men look at Women in the same light as straight men look at other men, I'm not certain that is the case at all.
It just surprises me that a country adopts a 'Freedom of Expression' clause, creates a monogomous society, and then gets all up in arms when some of that society decides to be same-sex preference because they didn't want that much Freedom of Expression.
