Should have pulled over somewhere secluded, and hopped in the back seat to join in.

@83 So it sounds like your saying the only 'natural' sex is between a man and woman for the purpose of conception? So by your own argument sex for pleasure is equally 'unnatural'? So either you've never been laid or you just put yourself in the exact same group as the people you are judging and belittling. I'm no expert but from an entirely 'natural' prospective it would be entirely possible for a gay couple to reproduce. Two guys would just need a surrogate mother, which correct me if I'm wrong, requires no 'medical advances for procreation'. Two chicks could do just same, needing only a sperm donor. Dunno if it's just me but I think all you managed to do is prove that you are ignorant and closed minded, and absolutely no different than someone who is gay when it comes to sex (unless you only have sex to make kids in which case FYL).

@119 So I think I may have missed it. How is anything you said remotely rational, logical or biological?

#59-Michelangelo and DaVinci weren't openly gay. In fact, there's no evidence to support Michelangelo's being gay. Read a book sometime and you'll see that he was so involved in his work that he never pursued a sexual relationship with a man or a woman. In fact, it's far more likely that he died a virgin. As for DaVinci...yes, there were rumors, and he was tried for homosexuality, but nothing was ever proved. He was more likely gay than Michelangelo was, as he kept young, beautiful looking boys around his shop. If you want to include an artist who was actually openly gay, put Caravaggio on your list. He was openly gay, and completely and totally convinced of his damnation. Just look at one of his paintings sometime. As for the rest, the only ones that I know of who were openly gay were Capote and Alexander the Great. I know nothing of the rest of them. And OP, that really sucks. But I've gotta say, probably wasn't the best idea in the world to take two guys you were interested to a bar. Alcohol never did anyone any good when it came to a situation like this. Lol.

And correcting my last post...it's da Vinici, not DaVinci. Haha, sorry, that was really bothering me.

I have a little something to say about the comments about homosexuality being unnatural, there are animals that lack males, ie the whip tail (a lizard), and many species which can change gender whenever necessary, from cichlids to clown fish and even cases of birds (a peacock to be exact). So, if the completely illogical and irrational thought that every human would become a homosexual, than I am confident that nature will find a way to keep our species going. Just a thought. To the OP: You will surely find another in the same way you found those, so chill a bit :)

YDI for being so hideous and unsightly that you turned two innocent guys gay. ...Shame on you!

@138 And I disagree with your whole statement since without proper specie diversification you have a weak species. A colony of ants is all female and an identical clone of the queen. The problem with homogenized species is that if a small bacteria comes about that can attack the colony, there is not survival of the fittest in those cases. If things don't get new genetic material from diversity in the group then evolution takes a back seat for the species. Without that leg up something as small as a virus can have dire consequences on the whole species.