There's no nicer way to say this but...

[Mister Agenda]

You cannot scientifically remove ideas and thoughts.
Science will, one day, find the exact causes of homosexuality in humans.
And it will find a cure, even if people who think themselves above society, science and decency will oppose it while screaming "bigotry".

The 'cause' of homosexuality (and heterosexuality, for that matter) is likely not so simple. A combination of genetics, fetal development, and early environment probably all contribute to varying degrees. There will never be a simple 'cure'.

[Anomalocaris]

The fact that homosexuality exists not just in humans, not just amongst the ape family of which human is a branch, not just amongst mammals, and not even just amongst the phylum that includes vertabrates, but in other phylums in the animal kindom such as the arthorpods as well, strongly suggest there is evolutionary pressure to preserve this behavior. This means any gene(s) reponsible for homosexuality is a well vetted, if perhaps subtle, evolutionary and survival advantage for the population that possesses it.

So any effort to remove it from the population is not curing anything, but introducing a defect by removing a gene(s) that demonstrated its value to the population by surviving possibly for as long as 6-800 million years since the ancesters of phylum of chordates to which humans belong, from the ancester of phylum of arthropods to which gay houseflies belong..

[kılıç_mehmet]

You cannot scientifically remove ideas and thoughts.
Science will, one day, find the exact causes of homosexuality in humans.
And it will find a cure, even if people who think themselves above society, science and decency will oppose it while screaming "bigotry".

The 'cause' of homosexuality (and heterosexuality, for that matter) is likely not so simple. A combination of genetics, fetal development, and early environment probably all contribute to varying degrees. There will never be a simple 'cure'.

There is no cause of heterosexuality. That is the way things are supposed to be. The reason you have a penis and testicles is to use these for reproduction. It's the "default" type of sexuality, or it should be for every human.

If there are other factors that are incurable, they certainly can be taken into consideration, but one should eliminate the factors that one can before the child has reached a certain stage of development in the womb.

Unrealistic.
It was never implied adoption would solve overpopulation, the fact they can't have kids themselves would. As to the problem of surrogacy, discourage it. Not just to gay couples but to straight couples as well, encourage them to adopt instead. Adverts, billboards, it doesn't matter. As long as its being put out there that the kids need homes, make it look like the right thing to do. That a child doesn't have to have your genetic traits to be your son or daughter, it just needs your love. These aren't unreasonable concepts. Also, I think it highly unfair that you use Elton John as the standard by which all gay couples should be judged. Most of them have their own hair and everything.

Well, the only factor that discourages gays from obtaining children via surrogacy is the high costs and of course, the legality of the act.
Besides, adoption is likely to be a way for infertile couples to have kids.
Most people who are biologically able still continue to have children the old fashioned way. As I said, advocating adoption does not solve overpopulation, it never did, and never will.
Personally, I would consider adoption only in a case in which I'm very rich, and have the money to look after an extra child, as an addition to my biological children. I also encourage adoption for the children of our lands, but first and foremost of all, I encourage a planned family.
A planned family that follows and cherishes our good customs and qualities is what will drive us forward.
And I think it's only fair if I use a prominent gay person who has completed every objective that the current gay community aims to archive for themselves.

---

The fact that homosexuality exists not just in humans, not just amongst the ape family of which human is a branch, not just amongst mammals, and not even just amongst the phylum that includes vertabrates, but in other phylums in the animal kindom such as the arthorpods as well, strongly suggest there is evolutionary pressure to preserve this behavior. This means any gene(s) reponsible for homosexuality is a well vetted, if perhaps subtle, evolutionary and survival advantage for the population that possesses it.

And how, might I ask, does homosexuality help for a population to survive?
For that to happen, homosexuality should only come forward in rather weak individuals, with little chance to reproduce other than by force, if they want to, as to drive them out of the genepool. I personally think it has little to do with the survival of the population.

[Mister Agenda]

And how, might I ask, does homosexuality help for a population to survive?
For that to happen, homosexuality should only come forward in rather weak individuals, with little chance to reproduce other than by force, if they want to, as to drive them out of the genepool. I personally think it has little to do with the survival of the population.

Well, there's the 'gay uncle' hypothesis. A 'gay gene' isn't directly advantageous for a male homosexual to reproduce, but a gene that results in a higher chance of you having a gay brother could be advantageous to you and your lineage. If your brother is gay and contributes to the survival of your children, the genes you have in common with him will survive. Having some men in the tribe willing to go without female mates could have been handy in several ways. One that immediately occurs is that they could be trusted to stay and help protect the women without trying to steal them while the other men went out to hunt. Another is that (sorry gay guys) they could have been given more dangerous tasks since they were less likely to have children depending on them as fathers. Another is that you and your gay brother or brother-in-law can team up in raising your children, for example, hunting together and both sharing the food brought back with your children. As for lesbian women, it likely wasn't much of a barrier to them being bred, given the likely treatment of women in prehistoric and ancient times, but it may have helped them delay breeding until their bodies were better equipped to survive childbirth.

And then there is the norm that gays weren't that unlikely to have children through most of history (and prehistory), and more of their children may have survived because they would tend to have fewer of them and have proportionately more resources for each of them.

[Tiberius]

And how, might I ask, does homosexuality help for a population to survive?

It's a natural population control mechanism.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, there's the 'gay uncle' hypothesis.

Both of my uncles are unmarried, and have no children. They are heterosexual. How does this differ from the "gay uncle"?
Although I must admit, I'd be reluctant to show my children to any gay relatives I had, if I had one.

If your brother is gay and contributes to the survival of your children, the genes you have in common with him will survive.

He could do this without actually being gay, or lesbian, you know. Besides, in today's conditions, openly gay people generally disassociate themselves from family members, either by choice, or by force.

Having some men in the tribe willing to go without female mates could have been handy in several ways. One that immediately occurs is that they could be trusted to stay and help protect the women without trying to steal them while the other men went out to hunt.

Well, this increasingly sounds like a "hive" type of hypothesis. All females but a single one is infertile, and have no real desire to mate with the male drones. They go off to find nourishment, while the queen reproduces with drones.
Still doesn't make the infertile female bees lesbians.

Another is that you and your gay brother or brother-in-law can team up in raising your children, for example, hunting together and both sharing the food brought back with your children.

Well, why would you need them, actually? In this type of a hunter-gatherer society, I'm not really sure that more than a single male did actually care for a single or multiple children. Besides, what really is their homosexuality good for anyways? They could have been just asexual, attracted to no one. Just like the eunuchs of the old.
And now, homosexuals want children of their own, not to look after the children of someone else.

but it may have helped them delay breeding until their bodies were better equipped to survive childbirth.

How, exactly?

And then there is the norm that gays weren't that unlikely to have children through most of history (and prehistory), and more of their children may have survived because they would tend to have fewer of them and have proportionately more resources for each of them.

How would they tend to have fewer children? If you can look after them, or if you can use them, you can have as many children as you want or need, actually. It isn't a matter of having less children because you're gay or whatsoever.
Like you have large acres of lands. But you have no one to plough through them. You need children. You need children so that you don't have to pay someone else to plough through it. Gradually, the number of children will decrease with the increase of wealth, not otherwise.

[Matt231]

There is no cause of heterosexuality. That is the way things are supposed to be.

In YOUR homophobic opinion.

[kılıç_mehmet]

There is no cause of heterosexuality. That is the way things are supposed to be.

In YOUR homophobic opinion.

Well, the vagina and penis speak otherwise. They were just made for eachother. Saying this is just speaking the truth.
Besides, I don't fear homosexuals. I don't have to fear homosexuals. On the contrary, they must fear me, for I am the majority.
They must agree to whatever conditions I set before them.
Not otherwise.

[Tobie]

In YOUR homophobic opinion.

Well, the vagina and penis speak otherwise. They were just made for eachother. Saying this is just speaking the truth.
Besides, I don't fear homosexuals. I don't have to fear homosexuals. On the contrary, they must fear me, for I am the majority.
They must agree to whatever conditions I set before them.
Not otherwise.

So might makes right does it? There are more of you, so you get to decline someone's fulfillment of life? Because most of us are heterosexual, we shouldn't allow homosexuals equality? Who made you judge, jury and executioner?

[Paul the Human]

The penis and vagina were made for each other... For the purpose of reproduction. Sex for pleasure, aka 'making love', does not need to have reproduction as a goal. Sexual attraction does not need that goal.