Legal or not they should always be socially disapproved.

That the species can survive some of its individuals being afflicted by a predilection for unreasonable sex acts doesn't mean that it wouldn't ideally be free of that trait.
That the species has two sexes determines that its ideal social fabric would involve only opposite-sex sexual relationships.Every deviation from…

IF (but only if) individuals are of opposite sexes,non-reproductive sexual acts between them may serve a useful purpose.

That a species has two sexes mandates that only opposite-sex sexual relationships be defended between its members.

The desire is impossible to justify gratifying.
As is the Trans attempt to pretend to be the sex they wish they were but their genes determine they are not.

Well,if you calm down and see that I'm right you'll be well ahead.

Something those who keep defending homosexuality need to take to heart.

It purports that desire to engage in same-sex sex acts or to represent oneself as of the sex other than that determined by one's genes can ever be justified,which is impossible.

Any "LGBTQ community" by nature constitutes a conspiracy against the greater good of the larger population in which it is found,existing to enable those who make the error of allying under its banner to escape deserved censure for unreasonable behaviors.The society benefits from those behaviors never happening,and…

Why do you say that?

Sometimes the wiring is hooked up wrong.That the species can survive that doesn't mean ideally every individual's wiring would be hooked up correctly.

Nope…wanting to do something is never enough to make it right,and having a co-conspirator makes no difference.

I am secular but NOT atheist…I regard it as necessary that there be an Infinitely First Cause,but see the IFC as largely unknowable and there to be no credible evidence that it writes books or founds official fan clubs for itself.
Nature is far from perfect…that something does happen doesn't prove or even imply that it…

No,that's a false dichotomy.
Requiring reproduction is unreasonably restrictive and allowing same-sex partners is unreasonably permissive…common sense is found only between those two insane polar extremes.

The point is,should it be illegal even when there clearly isn't a power imbalance?

You seem to be denying that there being two sexes means that only opposite-sex sexual relationships are rational.

You're not looking honestly enough or hard enough,then.

Because the species having two sexes means only opposite-sex sexual relationships can make sense.

Thank you for recognizing the critical difference between
does exist,and should exist.Many things that shouldn't exist do…like same-sex coupling.

The species has two sexes,and that necessarily determines opposite-sex sexual relationships as the only kind that ought to exist in the species,and all failures to adhere to this norm to be errors.