Homosexuality

Homosexuality (also Gayness, Queerness, LGBTness) is a sexual orientation, wherein a man loves a man, or a woman loves a woman, or a small furry creature from Proxima Centauri loves a small furry creature from Proxima Centauri of the same gender. It is doing everyone a favor, as gays are less likely to reproduce and contribute to overpopulation. Many animals have been shown to have homosexual tendencies, so the religious argument of it not being "natural" makes no sense. The same thing about 'protecting the sanctity of marriage' and 'unnaturalness' was said in the 1960's about Interracial marriage, and yet this is (mostly, select groups) accepted in society today. But it makes a fair amount of dollars for those using the issue to fatten their right-wing warchests. Churches that accept gays are called Open and affirming, reconciling or other code words.

"Gay" as offensive
Since society does not really yet accept homosexuals, one of the things that holds progress back the most are words used as insults that relate to gays. In youth especially, use of the word "gay" as a term to indicate something or someone is bad in some way, is used very often. Again in youth the word "lesbian" is used in excess to show you are not one. If your friend does something that you, in your homophobia, might consider to be homosexual behaviour, you call her a lesbian.

Conservapedia (obviously)
Conservapedia has multiple long articles on how bad gays and lesbians are, to simulate the eternity in Hell they wrongfully believe gays will go to.

Conservatives often use the word "pervert" to refer to homosexuals. Strangely enough, their own obsession with the sex lives of complete strangers is apparently not perverse in the least. This is shown in the article on Homosexuality on Conservapedia, stating false things such as Lesbians are more likely to become obese, or that Gays and Lesbians are also more likely to smoke than heterosexuals (though this is somewhat true, but it's only due to the fact they are under a lot of stress and pressure because of the homophobic assholes). It is most likely they came to this conclusion from calling Homosexuals fags all the time. This can cause a problem for the Englishman in the US, as in Britain, a fag is a cigarette. Saying that you're looking to pick up "a pack of fags and a rubber" (that is, "cigarettes and an eraser") can lead to either a vicious beating or a rollicking good time. It can also lead to lung cancer. Conservapedia also refers to homosexuality in animals as a "myth". It's not a myth though, is it? It's true. While animal and human sexual habits don't entirely correlate, homosexual behaviour (that is, choosing a partner of the same sex even when one of the opposite sex is available) has been observed in around fifteen hundred species and in a third of those, it's commonplace. Here are 2 Gay Penguins who want to be Daddies. According to the Conservapedians, even if homosexuality is natural, it's not necessarily moral. This doesn't make any sense either, as if God DID make us, then surely the natural way he made some people was gay, therefore making homosexuality natural and moral anyway. There, I just poked a massive, homosexual hole in your logic Conservapedia. I look forward to your apology to the worldwide gay community any day now.

Conservative abuse of gays
Most conservatives enjoying degrading innocent gays by throwing things (books, chairs, holy water) at them or calling them "faggots" (and not only during rough sex play), because as we can see from the scandals in the Republican party, they are repressed.

Anti-Gay societies are being created by conservatives who feel that homosexuals are just choosing to be annoying and should be taught to change. Closet gays may join these societies and look for other men like themselves there, now that risks HIV. Really, someone should ask them, don't you think if homosexuals could change, they would? Why would you put up with all of the stupid, homophobic comments that come with your sexuality, with being rejected from society, resented by your friends? Of course you wouldn't! If you had a choice, or a real reason to change. Neither has presented itself to homosexuals.

Matt Barber and his masculine Concerned Women for America
A "notable figure in regards to opposing the homosexual "agenda' is a guy called Matt Barber, who is head of Concerned Women for America (sounds gay to me) says this: "Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be “tolerated,” but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan “celebrate diversity” supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of “tolerance” and “diversity.”

This guy, is a prime example of a complete homophobic moron. Sorry to be predictable - but true. He calls Homosexuals "activists" because he holds them in the same esteem as terrorists. "Political Agenda"? This agenda is evil because it includes points such as: Talk about homosexuals and homosexuality as loudly and often as possible, Portray homosexuals as victims, not aggressive challengers.. Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause. This agenda scares conservatives, as it has aims that would make life for homosexuals far easier and more accepted. Now that guy and others like him looks like hypocrites since Bible Belt type Christians also regularly make problems for others and like to make themselves look like victims.

Genetics
There may be genes that predispose men, perhaps also women to be gay. Research is actively being done but the results are so far inconclusive. It should be questioned whether discovering such a gene is actually desireable as conservative opposition to "playing God" is likely to fly straight out of the nearest window as soon as it is. It appears environment has an effect as well. It is known, however, that homosexuals are not the Borg and do not convert people into homosexuals.

Natural population control?
Some have suggested that homosexuality has evolved as a form of natural population control. There are several problems with this idea.

Population control is not necessarily a good thing for the survival and propagation of a population. If there is a population of humans, such as a tribe or a country, overpopulation will create demand for resources. Because of this, a populous group of organisms will be driven to conquer other areas, and would then have moresources, which would then further increase said group's population. Ergo, groups that can more rapidly increase their population are more evolutionarily successful.

An exception to this are isolated groups, such as those on islands, that cannot conquer other groups of people, are not more evolutionarily successful by overpopulating. Overpopulation within an isolated population can be disastrous, such as with what happened on Easter Island.