Actually, the forum is taking it easy on the whole "posting on an old thread." We all had a little unofficial discussion, and we think that if the comment contributes something to the argument, than it is a valid post.
Anyway, overall, I still think that a person still needs the right conditions while being raised to become a full-fledged homosexual. It may have to do with genes, but it also has to do with life choices as well.
Except that cancer actually hurts things, which is why we actively work against it. Cancer is deadly. Cancer is painful. Cancer makes people's lives hell, and hurts them and everyone around them. Believe me when I say, nothing is analogous to how absolutely bad cancer his. Homosexuality, on the other hand, hurts absolutely no one. Your argument rests on the notion that homosexual acts are immoral. Unless you can provide concrete evidence that it actually hurts anyone, I advise exiting.
I advise you stop being an offensive bigot, and let him/her speak his/her piece. While I disagree with it, I do not go out of my way to tell the person to stop contributing to the argument.
Homosexuality does not hurt people externally, to an extent. However, because there are still some idiots out there who offend gay people, it probably hurts them emotionally. It may be an indirect cause, but it still happens. Me, myself, am straight but I have nothing against homos unless they start checking my ass out... then that is too far.
And I just have an odd question... One that I cannot bare to hold in any longer. I am interested in science and technology in general. So, using pure human logic, how in the hell could a homosexual gene be passed down throughout humanity if homosexual people have sex with another man (or woman if lesbian)? Would it halt the "spread" of the gene? I mean, one gets genes via combination of a MOTHER and a FATHER. So, just saying... it sounds a little unesplained. (yes I meant that typo)