[T@T]

Originally Posted by photon

"I don't dislike gay people in any way (actually have a few friends that are gay) but I don't believe they should flaunt it either."

I don't dislike black people in any way, but I don't believe they should flaunt it either.

I'm not gay so I can't say for sure, but that's probably similar to how what you said sounds to a gay person. If a hetrosexual couple can hold hands and kiss in public, then so can a homosexual one.

Seriously?
Alrighty then, hit me in the head with a big gay sex toy and call me a racist

Originally Posted by photon

As for evolution needing the same thing, that's flawed on many levels. First evolution "needs" no such thing, evolution is change via natural selection, and a male/female reproductive system is only one way organisms reproduce. Some species reproduce asexually, some change their sex as needed, some are hermaphrodites, etc.

I get that, difference is humans aren't asexual or hermaphrodites (unless you count the freaks that want to be) we need the opposite sex for evolution..period.

Originally Posted by photon

Second, homosexuality occurs in the wild among many many species so evolution clearly doesn't "need" a male and a female, quite the opposite it clearly gives some kind of advantage to associated genes which give rise to homosexuality.

Maybe their missing something, because a baboon is sexually frustrated and takes on his male cousin doesn't make it right. While not fully understood it's suspected that animal homosexuality in the wild kingdom has more to do with an animal not being able to find a mate then just being "gay"

I would like to know the percentage of male to female homosexual activity in the wild. I suspect a very large percentage is male.
And the evolution would stall till death if an animal species turned gay.