Common observation verifies the validity of the theory of evolution.

Males dogs always get it right when they mate, they go for female dogs and you can bet that they aim for the vagina and not the anus.

As to whether there is such a thing as a “gay gene”, it is questionable because its very existence contradicts the theory of evolution.

If it does exists the Irans are seeing to it that the theory of evolution prevails.
http://towleroad.typepad.com/towleroad/2005/07/report_gay_yout.html

Legally, yeah, fairly, heck no!

There’s a huge difference.

Re: “The CSE project is fully paid for by a trust whose chairman is pastor advisor to the Free Community Church which accepts gays, lesbians and transvestites.”

Who funds the sex ed program conducted by Focus on the Family?

You (and everyone else as a matter of fact) would be stunned to read this brilliant expose (the matter has gone international even while there are those claiming that this is not a national issue):

http://dogemperor.newsvine.com/_news/2009/04/24/2729992-a-steeplejacking-of-a-womens-ngo-in-singapore-a-rare-glimpse-at-how-joels-army-groups-work-in-practice

Re: “Anal sex – can be healthy or neutral if practised with consent and with a condom.”

Why don’t you answer these questions?

1. Is obtaining consent from a sexual partner before performing a sex act (that is actually more common than acknowledged, and even performed in the animal kingdom that we descend from) HEALTHY?

2. Is the use of condoms to prevent STDs HEALTHY?

What are your true objections to these few seconds (out of a 3-hour session) of a statement of FACT?

“rather than an honourable air of respectability”

Branding homosexuality as NEUTRAL does not mean I will go around “respecting” people for being gay. If you think about it, that is just absurd. It only means I will be NEUTRAL towards them, and not let their sexual orientation be a factor in my judgment of them.

“it’s obviously unnatural and unhygienic nature”

It is a misconception that homosexual sex must be “unhygienic” or unhealthy. If proper measures like the use of condom are taken, there is no reason why it must be so.

It may seem that homosexual sex is obviously “unnatural” to you, but the case is not as clear-cut as you think. In “natural” wildlife, there are abundant examples of homosexual sex in animals. Do a google and you might be amazed.

On the other hand, humans do many things that can be seen as “unnatural”. We breed dogs by unnatural selection. We change the course of rivers and streams. We keep dying patients alive by life support…

My point is, “natural” or “unnatural” are fuzzy concepts that cannot be properly defined or applied in a useful way. As long as the acts of others do not harm us, we should just give them the freedom to choose what they want.

Who are we to judge that we definitely know better than others?