I was saying it in my own words, and by "in favor" I meant "from the optic of the opposing party".

What did you understand "in favor" to mean, I wonder.

i see you editted your post, but you were e xplaining to me what strawman is, saying that i was using it incorrectly in order to undermine my point, and then didn't explain it correctly.

strawman is misrepresenting the opposing position. It's attacking the opposing position because it's attributing a definition of being contrary to the one that is proposed by science. We are defined simply by existence, nothing more.

I don't really care to comment upon what he was trying to prove, but you absolutely used strawman in an attempt to invalidate his claim which failed logically anyway.

1. All animals, exclusive of humans, have demonstrated cases of homosexuality.

2. Humans are animals.

I cannot conclude from these two statements that Humans display homosexuality. 

in favor means to agree, happy..

That's not what a strawman is though.

In the view of the side you described with the first claim under examination "why did god make gays", the viewpoint is that of a deist (I think). As such, a deist believes that a person is defined by the intent of the creator.

The claim was not a strawman argument, it was an argument from the premises on which the one that made the claim rests.

A strawman argument would be to say something like "Evolutionists believe that we are descendent from apes. Yet apes still exist today, so evolution must be false."

It's a strawman because you build a bogus case from the opposing view's premices, with a flaw, only to destroy it shortly after.

It's usually done intentionally, as a troll form of logic, and is something I hate reading.

i didn't say "exclusive of humans" though. I meant "ignoring humans" for the purposes of determining whether it should likely follow later.
according to all animals can be gay
and humans are animals,
it is absolutely logical that humans can be gay.

No I did not, I agree with you and I was only trying to prove that his logic failed. Despite your agree with me, you assume that I used a strawman when I didn't, I simply pointed out the flaw in his logic, whereas you simply indicated that it is flawed.

If you assume that all species are the same, or that all animals share the same behaviors.

Since that is very questionable, I hope you realize how it wasn't 100% logical nor mathematical, since you were missing a predicate. (that all species have the same behaviors, which itself is false).

^You could even say that, "if all species except 1 have the same behavior, then the remaining species under study also has that behavior"

However, you would need to add it as a predicate for your logic to work (otherwise you'll get an error or worse, an inconclusive result).

i understand your point happy, (on strawmen) but me argument was why would god make gays, if his purpose for us was to procreate.
in this sense it is taking the natural occurence of procreation as saying it is our purpose, when the scientific pov is simply that procreation is an ability.
"scientists say that we are designed to procreate"
it was not explicitly written, but it was my understanding that that part was understood.