Since you're supporting my statement, I'm sure then that the purpose therefore of this debate is satirical and not vengeful, correct? I'm not among any group of people that finds anyone who isn't a white heterosexual man lesser human beings then one.

Both your examples of testing women’s’ brains and Hitler testing Jews are agreeable. They are both ridiculous considering women may have a smaller brain in comparison to their overall mass, and Jews, aside from what they will claim, are only related by an ideology.

As for the example you gave concerning homosexuality, I must disagree, although I support your overall point your trying to make.

scientists spend time and money trying to find a mutated gene.

Much of the scientific research was privately funded in support of the gay rights movement. Supporters found that if they could prove that being gay was genetic or in some way inherited, it would prove that it was not a choice and even a part of their creation as opposed to what religious activists claim and as such they should not be discriminated (that they are human is reason enough for me to believe they should not be discriminated, but it would appear that people are not that reasonable, I blame religious indoctrination of our kids at early ages)

All that to prove that homosexuality is a disease.

First, I would like to let it be known that I am a LGBT supporter and that any negative review of my belief on this subject may be due to over assumption and/or misinterpretation.

It is somehow common belief that ‘disorder’ as in ‘mental disorder’ is shorthand for ‘disease.’ It is my belief that it is due to this common belief that homosexuality as a ‘disorder’ was removed from medical terminology. Real science is unbiased regardless if people’s feelings get hurt. So if some instances of homosexuality were found to be caused by a gene or a lack of a gene, it would be a disorder. This is not to say that it is shorthand for disease, icky, wrong, or unethical. It is simply stating that homosexuality is basically a mutation in those where it is discovered to be genetically based and that that mutation has an adverse effect on the individual.

Mutation?! Oh no! that must mean that gays are MUTANTS!!!....

NO! Again, mutation is not shorthand for mutant, defect, freak, or abnormal. Mutations occur in nature ALL THE TIME, they are the method at which organisms evolve and adapt. A random mutation occurs in an organism, and whether or not the mutation becomes a general trait to the species depends on how well the mutation assists in the survival and procreation of the organism. In some cases, the mutation does not provide any benefit or even develops a disadvantage but the mutation still gets passed to the species. This can be seen in the case of albinism. Albinism is known to be congenital, it causes many disadvantages in the organism with it from increased susceptibility to sunburn/ skin cancer, vision defects, lack of camouflage to hide from predators or ambush prey, etc.

Homosexuality, if found to be genetic, does not affect the lives of those with it (as in health, as for the social aspect, it gets pretty ridiculous considering all of the undue discrimination) but it does effect the procreation of the species if things like surrogate mothers or artificial insemination were not feasible, therefore it can be considered a mutation that causes an adverse affect if found to be genetic.

Now, I can name very many people who would argue that there is no adverse affect considering how much they love their boy/girlfriend, but I am speaking strictly in a scientific/nature respect.

They want to prove that homosexuality is not part of the "normal" human genome. From there, they could deduce that homosexuals are not "normal" humans.

Again, I know that there are those trying to squeeze their religious bigotry into the media by masking it with the use of science, but I have seen many more research funded in support of gay rights movement than against it. Even if gay bashers were to prove the scientific ‘cause’ of homosexuality, the only way they could argue against a person’s rights, gay or not, would be to push their religious views onto others. In doing so, their true motives would be revealed and if the law upholds the separation of church and state, it would not support their religious views.