As you stated, it is only a "theory". I personally don't believe in the theory of evolution and therefore don't think it infers anything about the homosexuality--which by the way, I don't think is an "issue". However, if we all "evolved" isn't it only logical to think that somewhere along the way our genetic makeup may have "evolved" into allowing us to be homosexual? My "theory" is we were each made different for a reason, not to be judged or crucified for our choices. Someone once told me God didn't make any mistakes and this is the "theory" I live my life by.

Evolution creates diversity. In fact, diversity is one of the hallmarks of healthy, active evolution. Most mutations, experiments, and alternatives simply fail or don't really do much for the species, but occasionally they save the entire race from extinction. This implies that we shouldn't get too attached to any one feature that a species has, and just see how it goes, how the differences between individuals might help the entire group. The point is to not judge. Just wait and observe, and let experience show what is useful or not. Evolution depends on accumulating lots of different experiences over time.

The science of evolution does not address homosexuality.I studied anthropology ,and sociology in University and the issue never came up.Homosexuals would of course be not carrying on a future generation,besides adoption.

The evolutionist would have to agree that the portion of the population that mates without the chance of reproduction would have to be the evolutionary "losers". The species will eventually choose that this trait is one to avoid and weed that trait out. If the evolutionists are correct, the homosexual population will eventually disappear. ** As a Note ** I am NOT saying that homosexuals should be in anyway cast out, sent out, banned, shunned, etc. I am also NOT saying people should speed the above process up. I do not believe in evolution, thus fell that homosexuals will be with us until the end.

Loaded question, anyone? Seriously, though, my opinion is that homosexuality does not have a genetic component, at least not in the majority of cases. Simply put, homosexuals (in theory) are less likely to reproduce, which should cause any genes that cause homosexuality to be selected out. On the other hand, there are some forces which could keep such a genetic trait in the genome. Anti-homosexual social pressure has in the past caused some people who might have been homosexual to overcompensate, producing many children. Also, there is a possibility that homosexuality actually does serve a positive biological role for the human species. The most likely role would be to limit untenable population growth; however, if that were the case, we'd see far more homosexuality in overpopulated nations, which is not the case. I am sure there are other possible roles, but I have not studied the subject enough to be able to discourse upon them. I have my pet theory, of course, about the causes of homosexuality, but they're heavily biased by my religion and have little bearing on this particular question.

Evolution is a hypothesis, not a theory. It is studied as a possible model of how life behaves. As part of that study, it is possible that a number of genes are responsible , and different combinations produce different results. There may be many copies of possible contributory genes in the gene pool that when isolated have no effect on sexuality. It is possible that not all homosexuality is the same. It is possible that homosexuality is very much nurture as oppose nature and possibly genetic factors such as I described are involved. if you follow my reasonings this would explain how homosexuality has not been naturally selected out.

I am not aware of it being in any of the science books, maybe in abstract ones. I have raised many wild type animals for many years, and what I can see, the stress of sexual drive forces the males to become aggressive with any other creature they can get to, both physically and sexually.

It infers that there is a purpose a reason for homosexuality (and lesbianism) that we have yet to uncover. Actually that may not be true anymore. Recent (relatively speaking) research in India came back showing a much higher instance of homosexual males being born to very fertile females. Usually (but not always) very fertile women later in life have homosexual male off spring. How that stacks up against evolution is that the more children women had the higher the chance of survival of our species. Later in life women would have more "problems" in delivering young thus what every hormonal/chemical properties that made Mom uber-fertile would result in later births (with a lower success rate or higher infant mortality) be "gay" balancing out the equation. Anthropologically speaking Gays and Lesbians may have proved very useful to the balance between adults and children. Too many children in the tribe would mean not enough hunters/gathers to feed the needs of the tribe. How best to offset the birth rate with enough adults to hunt and gather (and tend the little ones since it used to take a whole tribe to raise a child) than to create adults who would not desire to procreate? This last should make sense when we consider that gays although unable (in their pairing, not physically) produce children have a high desire to raise children? There is an instinctual need to tend the young. Mothering instincts are not unknown to gay males - I mean there is a reason why so many "act" like a woman, could it be that they are geared toward being "material" thus fostering that strong desire to raise children? Aside from the "female quality" of homosexuals, there is also a strong tendency for gays to be "sensitive" even the butch "manly-man" ones tend to have more patience, more compassion, more "sensitivity" and would, under other circumstances be ideal parents, sensitive enough to deal with the issues kids bring. Patient enough as well. Also, contrary to the myth-conceptions homosexuals in general are more adamantly opposed to pedophilia and have very clear clean cut lines between right and wrong on the matter. Although accused and blamed, the truth is that it is mostly straight men who inflict that kind of power over children. Gay males are "wired" differently then straight males. There may be a very good reason why women can form close relationships with gay males (many straight women do) without "issues" - possible back in the day that "trust" and companionship made it possible for the gay males and the females to affectively work better together to insure the success of the next generation. There is no secret that gays are attracted to child-type careers, teachers as example. And they tend to be very good at those types of jobs, seemingly having a connection with the children that alludes straight men. This does not imply "sexual attraction" I mean they desire to give something to the children, education, help, companionship, mentor ship, protection from the "evils" of the world. Through the centuries and even more so now days gays are being "punished" severely and accused (mostly wrongly accused) of being a source of harm to children, when aptitude tests, and history clearly demonstrates that gays have an innate "knack" for reaching children via school psychology, medicine, social work. Highly probable that because gay males are perceived as non-threatening (sissies, girls, whatever you want to rudely call it) that children are naturally drawn to or feel save with a gay male. Lesbians the so called "bull dikes" are strong women. They do and are inclined toward "dominate" rolls. Part of that includes a stronger sense of protection, a better ability to see "danger" in a situation. Now imagine a tribe where the men hunted and the women gathered - each group went off on their own. I'm not saying that women are defenseless, but lets face it a "bull dike" would have a much better chance of beating back a bear or being a strong leader to protect the females of the tribe while the males are away hunting. Yes there are sexual reasons for homosexuality, however there are key personality "markers" to homosexuals and Lesbians which are considered the butt end of a lot of jokes and are considered "stereotypical" however if we rationalize these and put them in perspective they can serve evolutionary purposes toward the survival of the species.