My dear friend Anonymous, you made some very good points to support homosexuality. You even gave a very fine example of some lizards, and their evolution into unisexual organism who indulge in homosexual intercourse for reproduction. But my friend, according to what you told, I do not agree that the type of intercourse those lizards have are homosexual ones, and it totally does not support the homosexual nature in human beings. You said, for reproduction sperm has to be generated within one of the pairing individuals even though it has to be aroused by another same sexed partner. But I ask you my friend, sperm a male reproductive tissue, has to be generated within that female individual. Besides they evolved into such organisms, (despite the fact I have tremendous difficulties in believing this story, but we will stick to with what you have to say), nature chose them to be like that, and it seems like nature is still not in the mood to lay off the very fundamental principle of having opposite sexual systems co-function at the time of reproduction whether be it instantaneous like in the case of your lizards or for long run like in the cases of any other animals. But the main point I want to draw your attention to is that human homosexuality is not even remotely close to what you have to say. Tell me, during human homosexual intercourse of gay men, does one of them produce ova (female reproductive tissue) so that it can fertilize, or in the case of gay women is one of the partner able to produce sperms, and in either of these cases is one individual solely capable of possessing both the tissues for fertilization and hence reproduction? Hell NO! Has evolution constricted human species to evolve into unisexual organisms like you claim might be the case in future? Of course not! Given the fact that every new born human is born either strictly male or strictly female, I see no signs that humans in the future will evolve into unisexual organisms like you speculate. Having read your article, I come to the conclusion that you have a total misconception about human homosexuality which is ? I state again- very unnatural. Come on people, battle of the sexes, inequality of rights, one of the genders getting less privileges, they, are all more of a social issue than natural, and it should be addressed in a more social way - Not turning towards some thing unnatural like encouraging homosexuality as its answer. That?s insane. When I gave the examples about robbers and frauds, I knew at the back of my head that everybody will fail to see the bigger picture it portrays and will jump with short sightedness. Of course robbers and frauds give physical harm and effects are relevant at that very instant, similarly homosexuality will physically harm our social well being and natural balance whose effects will be far more painful on the long run. I admire Ananymous? thought about things that we are let to believe, the things that are there from the past are the only things that we think are right, we are unsusceptible to change and that we need to have an open mind. To some extent I share that thought with you but not in this case. My friend, look around you, there are men and there are women - each of them play a significant role in reproduction. That?s a fact. The concept about "things that we are let to believe and things that are new does not readily find acceptance" is not even a little bit relevant in this case. Nirman, my friend when you posted these lines recently; {DANG!!!....This thread is inspiring people to become gay rather than control!!!!..:P OOPS SOBENO, seems ur startegy won't work...:D....Kasari samjhaune hola lau na ni!!!} It clearly indicates that you don?t even practice what you preach. You strongly lobbied for the fact that people who support gays are not necessarily gays. Now look what you have done, in just one swing of your words you turned everybody - Ananymous, Rhythm, Matrixgirl, Matrixrose, Echoes into gays, whom I believe-are actually not. Honestly man I have a strong feeling that you are very gay, correct me if I am wrong. I wonder why you refuted it in the first place, and seriously, if you are not then you better come up with a real solid alibi this time to support it. And lastly, Rhythm, sweetheart (please don't get offended when I say that) I like your name very much. I am not prejudiced like you said, not at least in this case. Until recently I did not seriously question homosexuality and its threats to us- just like you. But ignorance is not innocence and with facts in your hand, supporting it would be even more of a heinous crime.