tl;dr If this is going to be our last exchange, then you asked for it. Here is my dissertation so I can be a real scientist instead of a fragile pseudo-academic.

You have yet to refute a single thing I've said. In fact I don't really understand what you disagree with.

You have become a "bible thumping" evolutionist; you are behaving just like the religious fundy.

I have evidence to support my claims. Statements like this make me wonder if people understand why religious fundamentalists are so bad. It's not simply because they hold up signs that say "God hates fags", it's because they are wrong (of course it's more easy to ignore/forgive the quiet bigots). If they had actual proof that a.) god exists, b.) he hates gay people, then this kind of thing would be okay (assuming using anti-gay slurs would then be okay if god did in fact hate them).

sexuality and reproduction are not the same and by treating them so you'll never advance the study of evolution.

I have never said they were "the same". You seem to think they are completely unrelated, which is just silly. Human sexuality is a byproduct of our evolutionary drive to reproduce. Also, it is okay to study what part of human sexuality without studying the whole. Of the mainstream displays of sexuality, homosexuality is the most interesting to most evolutionary biologists because its prevalence has the least intuitive explanation.

I'll give the best analogy I can think of off the top of my head. Suppose people in the United Kingdom discovered that black people were at greater risk of Vitamin D deficiency due to the increased levels of melanin in their skin. It would not be racist for scientists to ask, "how did this trait come about?". Asking this question does not mean that scientists think that white people are in any way better than black people, except that they are at decreased risk for Vitamin D deficiency in Scotland.

Of course eventually they would realize that this trait actually leads to increased fitness in environments with greater sun exposure due to protection from skin cancer (and hypervitaminosis D).

It seems as though in that situation your complaint would be:

the real question to examine is the whole of sexuality (and love/bonding)

"the real question is to examine the whole of skin color"

or

For objectivity we must seperate sexuality from reproduction

"for objectivity we must separate skin color from sun exposure-related survival".

I hope this illustrates why I think it's okay to ask the question "what is the evolutionary explanation of the prevalence of the homosexual phenotype?" And in answer to an anticipated objection, It makes no difference whether the phenotype is behavioral or physiological.

Please read my comments with an open mind. As much as I care about equal rights for LGBT people, I don't think it is appropriate for lay people to pressure scientists to avoid valid lines of investigation just because of the political climate. This happens too often from the right, and I'd prefer not to see it start coming from the left.

The reductionist approach to science has been the most productive methodology to date; and studying homosexuality would likely lead to an overall better understanding of sexuality in general, which seems like something you would appreciate, just as studying heterosexuality has in the past.