Of course you were. Let's be frank. You didn't like the answer to the question I posed, so you answered the question you wanted to answer. That is an evasion.
Look, when you intentionally twist the discussion to suit your needs and then play the victor you lose a lot of credibility. If you're going to have this debate at least do so honestly.
Then the non-evasive answer to my question is "No", not "yes".
Because it's utterly ridiculous for you think for a moment I was suggesting that infants come out of the womb doing the horizontal shuffle. C'mon now.
If I was unclear in what I said, just say so, but don't pretend I was being evasive because it makes you think you've somehow won a battle.
So a homosexual sexual assault is not a homosexual experience?
You're misinterpreting what I said.
It is the sexual assault that most likely causes the psychological trauma, not the fact that it is also a homosexual sexual assault. If that same man were sodomized by a very large and very unattractive woman with some sort of object it would not be a homosexual experience yet it would still be a sexual assault and could very well have the same result.
I don't think that arguing what is "natural" works for your position. First, this inevitably leads to the teleology of sex, which is reproductive. Second, by this measure, all abnormal sexuality is "natural". Third, though you assert that homosexuality would be natural even in the absence of civilisation or society, you've little chance of finding an example to prove it.
Sex is not merely reproductive in the human animal. Our females do not go into heat, do not have limited reproductive cycles and do not completely stop having sex once pregnant. Sex in humans - as with other primates - is as much an interpersonal phenomenon as it is a means to reproduce.
As for your third comment, I've already provided a list of animals that exhibit homosexuality. They don't have civilization or culture. We also see homosexuality in our closest genetic neighbors, the primates.
Finally, you still would not be meeting the issue involved in teaching children what they should or should not do, as opposed to "be". People are responsible for their conscious acts, even those toward which they may be predisposed. Again, race is a poor analogue, because no one is responsible for choosing his race. Teaching children that abnoraml sexual conduct is to be accepted as if it were normal is a moral, ethical and philosophical matter that cannot be dismissed by facile reference to what may be natural.
People are responsible for their conscious acts but they are not responsible for the innate sexual desires that arise from biological influences. If you want to talk about immorality then a gross injustice is telling a group of people they should deny their biological imperatives - ones that do no inherent harm to anyone else - because another group of people find it icky or read it in a religious text.
Homosexual and bisexual tendencies are natural in the same way that heterosexual tendencies are natural. The book in question is not encouraging children to start "acting gay" or picking up any lifestyle, it's explaining to children that homosexuals are a part of nature and should not be discriminated against for something they have no control over.
Race is not a poor analogue. No one is responsible for choosing their sexual preference or gender identity.