Homosexuality

"I'm not aware of any species in nature..."
See appealing to your own ignorance.

"Please show me an example where entire communities practice this behavior [of homosexuality as a routine and sustained way of relating to other same sex members of that species], over time, in nature..."
That's 4, maybe 5 argument fallacies in one sentence. No matter what evidence there is for homosexual behavior in animals (e.g. anal sex, same-sex courtship, etc.) you will say "oh no, that's not really homosexual behavior" (see the no true Scotsman fallacy). Furthermore, you're claiming that homosexuality isn't natural until someone demonstrates otherwise, but logically, in the absence of a demonstration, you can only logically claim that you don't know (see burden of proof). But even if more evidence is given to you, you'll just create new criteria for what counts as homosexual behavior (see moving the goalposts). Finally, the contentious claim here is whether homosexuality is natural - but you're tearing down a different, more specific, claim: that "homosexuality occurs in a routine and sustained manner over time in species other than Homo sapiens" (see strawman fallacy). Whether or not that's true - and your stance is conjecture on your part - I don't see this as particularly relevant (though it seems to imply you don't have a problem with bisexuality). Why on earth should we look to animals for guidance on what we ought to do? Why should we base morality of what is "natural"? (see Appeal to Nature).

"This behavior, while being homosexual, can hardly be onsidered validation for Homosexuality."
You're only scratching the surface of homosexual behavior. See here.

"Homosexuality tries to seek some sense of permission giving from evolution but homosexuality flies in the face of 'survival of the fittest'."
No-one has to seek permission from the laws of nature for their actions - the idea of seeking permission from a higher power or force is a religious concept. Scientists and those interested in science instead seek a better understanding of what occurs in nature because they find it both fascinating and useful, and the process can certainly challenge assumptions our beliefs are based upon. You can learn a lot about both homosexual and heterosexual behavior by studying animals.

"it takes faith to believe in a theory (evolution)"
The belief in evolution is based on reason and evidence. But it's good to see you dislike the practice of basing one's beliefs on faith.

"Statistics favors creation or intelligent design over evolution but "science" doesn't want to be pestered by the numbers"
This technique is called mirroring. It's when you reverse the arguments made by your opponents. In this case you're trying to associate creationism with statistics and evolution with faith. It's marketing 101. I've seen more subtlety in an ad for extra large condoms.

i completely agree that homosexuality is natural because it has been found in more than 40,000 species of animals including humans also and one more thing whenever u fall in love or attraction so at that time do u make a view in your mind that u will be attracted towards only a male or only a female ???????
no, we never think about it becoz the feeling of attraction is just natural it comes from inside .
so u must go home and think about it very very deeply........

Conservatives aren't interested in your complicated papers. They have the bible. The bible clearly says that homosexuality is wrong. Since God is just, he couldn't have made us hard-wired to be evil - evil must be a choice.

This type of reasoning - where scripture is used to determine science facts - is dangerous. This is why I'd disagree with you on the issue of atheists directly challenging religious beliefs. The cruelty of challenging someone's beliefs - which at most is an attack of words (and I'd recommend any attack be done with courtesy and respect) - hardly compares to the cruelty of denying homosexuals legal rights.

"this is such an obvious constitutional overreach that I'm surprised conservatives can stomach it."

Both conservatives and liberals will invoke constitutional arguments when it serves their cause, and come up with excuses as to why a constitutional argument doesn't apply when it contradicts their prejudices. People don't think like supreme court judges.

This is more obviously true than practically anything else I know.

Apart from questions of morality --where I think gays and lesbians should enjoy full social equality -- this is such an obvious constitutional overreach that I'm surprised conservatives can stomach it.

I've seen the papers. Heritability is practically undeniable, genetic origin is pretty likely, X-linked is plausible.

my dads raised me and im fine im a great student and im graduating this year so get your facts straight and i think i would have not been as good with a mom :)

It is likely that there are closet homosexuals who attempt to lead a heterosexual lifestyle do to the pressure of society. However, if you remove that pressure, and enable every homosexual to come out of the closet, there will still be enough actual heterosexuals to have enough families to raise another generation.

Though really, the claim that homosexuals value family less is weak. Many homosexual couples work around their reproductive disadvantages, through adoption or artificial insemination, to have children.

Arguably a few generations rather than a few decades are needed before we can really determine stability (I guess empirically we'd want to look to historical examples of how changing cultural practices led to the weakening/downfall of previous empires).

Having said this, I'm very suspicious of people who can confidently single out homosexuality as a major destabilizing factor in society. The far larger heterosexual portion of society has a far larger potential impact on society's destabilization (e.g. low birth rates in rich countries, high male/female ratios in China).

Societies that have gotten more accepting of homosexuality over the past few decades don't seem to be collapsing. I think we can reject this empirically.

Homosexual couples are generally more stable than heterosexual ones, which guarantees a better environment for the child and whatnot. If anything, allowing them to adopt them would reduce the general number of orphans and result in a much better general situation. This is another one of the cases where supposed "moral standards which must be upheld" get in the way of progress.