That's how it works right?

Evolutionary theory is descriptive, it isn't in any way prescriptive.

It simply means that your genes don't contribute to the gene pool if you don't procreate. If you don't want to procreate, there's nothing "wrong" with that.

You're not even answering my question.
I wonder why...?(????)?

What happens if an entire species fails to procreate? It goes extinct. But evolutionary theory simply describes the process by which this happens, it doesn't claim that a species going extinct is "bad" and prescribe anything accordingly. To say a species going extinct is bad is prescribed by peoples' personal evaluations of the perceived consequences of that species going extinct, whereas evolutionary theory (which itself isn't even necessary to understand that a species that does not procreate will go extinct) describes how it happens.

"What happens if an entire species fails to procreate? It goes extinct."

Correct.

Now: doesn't that answer prescribe some kind of necessary function for the members of those species?

The short answer is no. Evolutionary theory does not "prescribe" that a species should survive. Additionally, evolutionary theory expects that there will be a certain percentage of any population that will refuse to procreate, whether it be by an abnormal behavior, like homosexuality or an unwillingness to mate, or by a behavior that is advantageous to the gene pool, such as mating rights. And even a member of a species that does not procreate can still increase the chances of some of it's genes being passed on to the next generation, for example by caring for kin, which increases the probability that the genes shared by related individuals will be passed on to the next generation. Though ultimately, I'm not sure how relevant the example you present is to evolution, since the fact that a species will go extinct if none of its members procreate is true regardless of whether or not evolutionary theory is correct.

If you are willing to use categories like "abnormal" and by implication it's opposite "normal," the example wouldn't seem relevant to you.

My meme and statements and questions are not attacks on the correctness of evolutionary theory. Rather they are aimed at the people who claim to believe in evolution but refuse to acknowledge their behaviors as abnormal or unnatural according to evolutionary theory.

In a sexual species, the normal and natural means for the *members* of that species to pass on their genes, which keeps the species alive (baring some abnormal behavior or circumstances) is for the male members to procreate with the females. Am I correct about that?

I think your difficulty with my statements is the phrase "evolution says" or the use of "prescribes." How about this: if the normal or natural behavior we observe in sexual species is procreation, that *suggests* that the normal and natural behavior of our species is procreation. Better?

When I say abnormal, I simply mean outside the overall most common behavior. That doesn't imply that there is anything wrong with it, and evolutionary theory doesn't either. Behaviors like homosexuality aren't "unnatural," because they do naturally occur within nature, and evolutionary theory expects as much. Evolution doesn't have an intention. Populations simply have far fewer homosexuals or asexuals because such individuals are far less likely to pass on their genes; from an evolutionary standpoint, it's in no way unnatural or worse that they exist in the first place.