You have done your argument serious damage by even pursuing this absurd line of reasoning. For argument's sake, let me answer:
1) Some homosexuals claim to have had sex with others - most do have heterosexual experiences before 'deciding' that they are better off being strictly homosexual. In that case, your theory of exclusivity flies completely out of the window.
In this case, being 'homosexual' is simply a classification - not an accurate depiction of a person's sexual behaviour.
No, I have not done it any damage.
Exclusively gay homosexuals that have sex with others will claim they did it only because of societal pressure, the wish to be seen as normal and they are not particularly keen on the heterosexual sex. They would rather not do the heterosexual stuff and the ones in the UK do not. Surely you will not hear of Boy George banging a woman? His diseased instrument will not get up one inch.
So comparing it to animals that actually are keen on the heterosexual sex is lame.
2) How many animals show any 'preference' that isn't hardwired genetically?
Do lions exhibit PREFERENCE to live in the Masai Plains of East Africa instead of Kraals in South Africa How much 'thinking' can we really say goes into animal choices when they are essentially instinctive? Seeking preference would involve getting insight on the thought process and decision making of animals. Without being able to question them and interrogate them, how would you go about seeking evidence of 'choice'?
Yes, the lions are demonstrating a preference as they have the liberty to roam to anywhere they feel BUT they stick to the areas they feel best suits their survival, NOT BECAUSE OF GENETICS.
That is similar to other animals migrating across continents to places of PREFERENCE, not GENETIC WIRING.
Sho, this argument baffles me.
3) Born straight or gay is not really the issue - the issue is the validity of that form of sexual expression, not the root cause of it.
Based on your previous argument, the mere existence of this same act in 'nature' defeats your argument that it is an invention of the human mind or that it is against 'natural order' given the example of the animals.
The fact that certain animals are carnivores, or they eat their mates or mate with 100 members of the opposite sex cannot and will not ever be a justification for human behaviour. If not, killing fellow humans for meat would be acceptable behaviour.
Born straight or gay IS AN ISSUE as we leave in a society that formulates and implements rules as we have superior thought process and can hence be better structured than other animals. And as we are grossly disgusted with homosexuality, paedophilia, incest, transgender etc, the root cause matters in formulating and implementing the rules.
How many times do I have to tell you that it does not exist in nature? If it does, show me, I am an open-minded person (keyword there is "mind", which encompasses "thinking", especially independent one). It might exist where the animal is living in an environment that restrict it from performing naturally but it will not be found in environments where they can. Please stop that argument.
The fact that some animals are carnivores is where our ability to think and set rules come into play. And let me pre-empt you by making it clear that the rule we want to set in Nigeria is to ban homosexuality.
I disagree completely. First of all, animal sexual preferences can never and will never be a basis for determining appropriate human behaviour.
It will never be a basis for determining human behaviour due to the ability above I pointed out but it is a basis to know if something is natural or deviant.
So if our rules depend on judging on deviancy and naturality so it is quite important to know if disgusting acts like homosexuality is natural or deviant. The best way to know this is by checking the animal world as there is NOTHING that is NATURAL about humans that will NOT be found in similar forms in the animal world. NOTHING!!!
Be it:
Human: Race (Black, White, Indian, Oriental)
Animals: Different specie races, ala different features, of Lions (Asiatic, Barbary, Cape), Elephants (African, Indian), buffalos (Forest type, Asian Water), chickens (Silkie, Agric, Fayoumi, Minorca), dogs (Alsatian, Pitbull, Peking), even lobsters (European, American, Canadian) etc
So when you come with your lame comparison of homosexuality to race, it is bullshiit because race exist in animals and can be proved.
We fall ill, animals fall ill, we defecate, they defecate, we have fear they have fear, we reproduce they reproduce, we have albinos they have, we have deformed offsprings they have, we grow at stages they grow at stages, we die naturally they die naturally, we are faggots they are not . . . . . . . . (rewind).
So if faggotism is natural, how come we can not see it in the animal world.
To determine how we deal with the perversion of homosexualism, we need to determine how it comes into existence. Quick think through suggest 3 possibilities to me:
1) Born that way
2) Developed into it for peculiar reasons
3) Choice due to perversion
If it is:
(1) Then we have to determine whether we can and want to find a way to turn them straight, if we can not then we have to accept them the way they are. No be their fault and we can not transform them.
(2) It is not natural and it is a problem in the system that has resulted in some being perverted and abnormal. Then we should be able to research without personality attacks from the gay mafia and find a cure just like the west have been trying to find one for paedophilia.
(3) Lock them up.
If I was a scientist that was going to do research to show naturality of homosexuality by showing animals are also gay (and hence proving that it is (1) above), then I will have to set criteria, which will include:
a) The animals for the study must be in their natural setting hence nothing is forcing them to show unnatural traits as the aim of the research is to show a NATURAL behaviour.
b) The animals must have assess to both sexes of animals for intercourse but specifically choose same sex intercourse.
c) The gay animals must be a sub-set of the animals not all the animals as this shows some where born gay and some straight, not an overly sexed specie.
d) The subset of gay animals must be decently large percentage of the animals and they frequent demonstrate this desire/behaviour. It is not a SINGLE, RARE OCCURRENCE which shows a crazed animal. Remember a crazed animal is not a gay animal. Otherwise all we have proved is that animals too have mad ones.
e) There is penetration and ejaculation as this shows that it is actually a pleasurable sexual intercourse that has resulted from AROUSAL of the mating animals and they want to get at it just like same sex do.
f)
Ideally also show that there is exhibition of mating rituals between the animals as this proves that those fags that behave (talk, dress, walk etc) like the opposite sex are not some demented souls but this criterion is relaxable as I know it is hard to show.
g)
Ideally also show at least 10 different types of animals that demonstrate all these, but this is also relaxable because I am confident one cannot even be found.
These criterium are easily demonstrable in the human world and if it was natural, should be demonstrable in the animal world as there is NOTHING that is NATURAL to us that cannot be found in a specie of animals. 
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
, they will only try to hide him/her praying for a change, and probably send the child abroad so as not to be caught in d act in 9ja.
