[csense]

...but it does have a goal in the sense that natural selection selects for mutations that increase the "fitness" of individuals within an environment. Passing on genes is the "goal."

If selection of fitness translates to reproduction as a goal of natural selection, then how do you explain homosexuality, which necessarily yields a state of reproductive stasis. Furthermore, why could I not then conclude that your claim is incorrect, since such a goal of reproductive stasis is the observation which would falsify your claim. And lastly, if such an observation of reproductive stasis does not falsify your claim, then how can the claim be useful, let alone falsifiable, if it can accommodate states which are in opposition to each other.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...then how do you explain homosexuality, which necessarily yields a state of reproductive stasis. ...

Fitness applies to species (or other groupings), not individuals. Ants and bees seem to do quite well with over 99% of the individuals being sterile. Individual homosexuals may not have their genes passed on but that has no more bearing on human evolution than the failure of many heterosexuals to bear children.

Non-breeders may be useful.

[Alter Kaker]

then how do you explain homosexuality, which necessarily yields a state of reproductive stasis.

I don't explain homosexuality. I've seen attempts to explain homosexuality through evolutionary mechanisms, but since nobody has shown with any certainty what exactly homosexuality is, I think it's really just conjecture. Maybe someday soon we'll know. But there are lots of cases where people don't pass on their genes -- suicides, for instance. And yet selection is still at work.