Agreed.
just as there's a difference between heterosexuality and promiscuity.
And there's a difference between homosexuality and promiscuity, too.
In any event, what possible natural reason could there be for a male inserting his organ into another male's rear opening? Whether animal or human?
It feels good?
How many heterosexual males are likely to desire anal sex with a boy, as opposed to homosexual males? That's the relavent issue vis-a-vis the Scouts.
And the scouts are entitled to ban gay scoutleaders. But it's certain acts practiced by both gays and straights that are more likely to spread disease, not homosexuality in and of itself. Your position was that homsexuality was bad because it spread disease.
You'd be amazed how many homosexuals report that they were "introduced" to sex as a minor by an older person.
I can say the same of heterosexuals. There's usually someone experienced leading someone inexperienced.
God and/or nature (take your pick) provides us with two sexes, who are naturally opposites, and who can bond to reproduce.
I guess I just don't see reproduction as the end-all and be-all of human existence.
Not a whole lot, but some.
Like I said, I know lots, and I've never seen that gynophobic behavior you describe. I've seen far more misogyny from straight men.
Do you therefore advocate that children in the public schools be taught that homosexuality is perfectly normal, and just as good and just as valuable to society as heterosexuality?