Actually we do have an idea effect it will have if we look at history. Soddom, Gomorah, Greece, and Rome to name a few.

The study against a good number of animals... such as the aforementioned penguins would disagree.  You're thinking of "bisexual" animals.

That doesn't prove anything. The statement being made is that being gay is a genetic variation and I have yet to see any research on the subject of a gay gene. A paper or two documenting reseach into the human genome and pinpointing a genetic variation in gay people that causes them to be gay is what I would like to see. Until I see said paper, I remain unconvinced and the inability of anyone, anywhere, to show me that paper is starting to convince me that there is not a gay gene at all and gay people are just weirdos. I do however remain open to the possibility that they are not just being weirdos if someone can show me a scientific study that identified and verified the presence of a gene(s) that "make" someone gay.

You were born with X amount of taste buds, and as you grew up, your tongue expanded, making the taste buds farther apart.  Everybody has a few things that gross them out early on, because everything is a taste explosion to kids, especially in the bitter department (coffee, wine, beer, grapefruit, brussel sprouts, etc.).  Some people still have more than average taste buds, and some people have fewer.  25% of people are supertasters (hypersensitive to bitterness), 50% are "average", and 25% are non-tasters (very insensitive to bitterness).  There's even a way to measure this, but I forgot what it is.  It's easy to find online, and you can do it at home and it's hilarious.

Because they want to be hated for their whole life, OBVIOUSLY.

While many animals have different ideas about sex, they overlap with human ideas on the subject in several ways.

In fact, dolphins fall in love with each other and have families and very intense emotional bonds.  When some tuna fishermen kill a dolphin, their "spouse" will actually commit suicide out of grief.

And Bonobos are known for having bisexual orgies and even trading food for sexual favors, i.e. monkey prostitution!

And the prison gayness you mentioned is very common in any situation that involves all men and no women, like pirates, sailors, coal miner, cowboys, basically any macho idea where it's all manly men and no women around... they're fucking.

Now here's the fun part: that doesn't make them gay.  People's sexualities are not defined by a one time act but are actually defined by who they love in a romantic sense.  I could go fuck 10 dudes right now on a dare if you paid me $500, and that wouldn't make me gay.  That would make me $500 richer.  What makes me straight is that I'm spending the rest of my life with my wife.  Sexualities are defined by emotional desires, not physical acts.  Booyah!

Rome... hm... so if we allow gay people to marry we are going to overextend our army to the point of where we get our asses kicked by the Visigoths?

The modern equivelent would be... what... overextending our military and getting our asses kicked by terrorists?  We seem to be doing a good job overextending the military as it is.

Greece... is an odd choice as well as i can't see anything that suggests how gayness negativly effected greece.

How about all of the "straight only" nations that have been wiped off the face of the planet?

ehh... I guess it doesn;t really matter that much.... just seemed a little too high to me...

I don't have a problem with gay people. I've had a few friends in High School that were gay and I didn't even know that they were. And they were some good friends to me over those four years. So that's not a problem. I do have a problem with flamboyantly gay people. Guys who wear lip gloss, or are loud, pop their gum, smack their lips, etc. I also don't like gay girls. Nothing about girl-on-girl action remotely turns me on... It's simply disgusting to me. That being said, I have no problem with gay girls either. As long as they're not too "dike-y".

The problem is that it's taboo to be gay, so people tend to hide it (especially in the black community), I remember making fun of gay people all the time when I was younger, so people hide it, and have gay sex with other guys, don't protect themselves, then pass on HIV/AIDS to their female partners. I think if people were more open and accepting of gayness, HIV/AIDS numbers would drastically reduce.

I compute sexual preference to a choice. Much like when you go to a restaurant and order a drink. Do you want lemonade or coke? I don't get mad when people don't choose lemonade (my fav. drink), so why should you hate on people who don't share your sexual preference. And generally, when I'm talking to my friends and whatnot, we're not sharing sexual exploits, or anything like that (not that I've done anything >_>). It's everyone's choice to be what sexual preference they like, and it's their decision to like or not like the same sex, and it's none of my business. If I'm friends with someone that's gay, but they're still there for me, and are cool to hang around with, I don't see a problem with it.

I'm not too sure what that had to do with the OP, but that's my $0.02.

 humans are more intelligent, and are supposed to evolve. You can't evolve if someone in your ancestry with a special gene chooses to be gay and you are not born (with that cancer preventing)

So again: it isn't natural.

Wow, that's a ridiculious precedent.  It's a good thing the scientific community doesn't have the same precedent.

For one... sexual prefrence is way more complicated then just one gene.

Secodly there have been lots of studiest that show a lot of similar genetic markers in gay people though.

You can  disagree but you're being a bit intellectuially dishonest if you actually look at the research.  It's like saying you don't belive in the elments that are purely theoretical because we haven't created them in a lab setting yet despite fitting the formula. (Or had we finally created them all....?)

Or you could scientifically prove that people are turned gay by whatever.

The burden of proof doesn't seem to be on either side in this argument, so you can't claim the logical high ground in this argument.