Clydey really read your quote once again, the italic lines are the exact and the only things that you are doing.
Procreation and lesser species have always been an easy bait for the naive to categorize something as preferable or not to the species. But human species isn't and animal collective per se, civilization is far more complex than that, it is a big leap away from what is a human in term of 'species' therefore, Darwinian argument in its original or even slightly modernized form are never enough to clearly define a right path of humankind or the lesser parts of it, the dead-ends, while it seem quite sufficient when it comes to other animal species and their evolutionary path.
I suggest you concentrate more on your studies and your hobbies and a little less on forums like this, and if you consider my suggestion malicious or patronizing, please don't as i wish the same thing to myself, oh how i wish for it..
You're not getting it. I have said repeatedly that homosexuality is not wrong and that I am not prescribing Social Darwinism. I also did not suggest that there was a right path. My argument is purely an evolutionary one. It is other people who are taking me in a different direction.
It is a simple fact that homosexuals are much, much less likely to pass on their genes. You are taking the argument in a different direction completely. The only thing I have stated is that homosexuals are inferior from an evolutionary perspective. Nothing more, nothing less. I am not saying that they are worth less, nor am I advocating Social Darwinism. It is simply a fact that heterosexuals are more likely to pass on their genes.