Let me preface this by saying that I have an IQ of roughly 172 (possibly higher, due to the whole issues with estimating IQs in that range and normalization and stuff, but we'll go with 172 for simplicity), I graduated from a school for the gifted and talented after attending it for all of my elementary and middle school career (ran out of grades- currently in my Sophomore year at an average public high school, though I have skipped up classes in several areas and am in the highest possible classes for the things I couldn't be bothered to look into skipping over), I could join Mensa if I wanted to but there's really nothing to do with it in my area, and I found the whole idea of discriminating against people for homosexuality and bisexuality ridiculous and intolerable from the moment I first heard that there was such a thing as homosexuality and bisexuality. So it's pretty obvious that IQ means zip here, capische? Furthermore, I find it sad that someone in my IQ range can't realize that- more evidence that IQ alone means nothing, I suppose.
The thing is, you can whine all you want about it being against the laws of nature, but you'd be ignoring the evidence, given that homosexuality occurs all the time in the animal kingdom- hell, there's actually a few species of lizards that are entirely female, reproduce via parthenogenesis, yet still fuck (and yes, I can provide citation here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=348299 is probably your best bet, but a simple Google search of "cnemidophorus parthenogenesis" should get you all you need). Granted, you could argue that the latter is not applicable given that the reproduction methods are so entirely different as to conform to an entirely set of standards, and you would certainly have a point.
However, such an argument cannot be made about species like, say, lions. Or crabs. Or black-headed gulls. Or penguins. Hell, take your pick- there are, after all, over 1,500 animal species in which homosexuality is regularly observed (and 500 in which it is well documented), and not a single animal species (with the exception of the truly asexual) in which homosexuality has never been observed (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718). Hell, the Oslo museum even had an exhibit about it back in 2006 (http://www.nhm.uio.no/againstnature/index.html).
And before you say otherwise, this is hardly equivalent to, say, a dog humping a chair leg- this is not sex for sex's sake. Aside from the fact that many of the more or most intelligent of the "higher" animals, such as dolphins and apes, regularly practice homosexuality, these pairs frequently last just as long as heterosexual pairs or, in some cases, even longer, with some of these "life partners" not only actually mating for life, but raising young together (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6066606.stm).
So it's pretty clear that homosexuality is hardly against the laws of nature. However, you could make the argument that something occurring frequently in nature does not meant that it is necessarily right, and you would be quite correct- after all, the animal kingdom does see a variety of decidedly unsavory things happening, such as parents eating their young, animals killing each other, cannibalism, and a variety of other horrible things.
Of course, by the same token, things that are unnatural aren't necessarily bad- or are you going to call things like air conditioning an abomination, too?
Given these things, it's pretty obvious that whether or not something is natural has little to do with whether or not it should be permitted in this society. So, given the illegitimacy of that criterion, how can we judge whether or not things such as homosexuality and bisexuality should be tolerated?
We could, as many have suggested, use texts such as the Bible or other religious works as a basis for our society. However, despite what many wish to believe, there is no reliable way of authenticating these documents, nor any way to prove that one is either the absolute truth or that one should be the foundation upon which the laws and morality of our society is founded. Additionally, given that the extent of laws and mores, and, in this case, the issue of whether or not homosexuality should be tolerated, is confined purely to the mundane, material world, we should use mundane, material criteria to judge these issues, not supernatural, unquantifiable, untestable and unverifiable things like the Bible.
With that settled, we must now ask ourselves- by what secular criterion can we judge these issues? Now, here is the point at which I'm going to cut my argument a little short (yeah, yeah, I know: "too little, too late" and all that) and simply say that the only secular, and thus, in this case, legitimate, foundation for judging what should and shouldn't be tolerated in our society is whether or not permitting such behaviors would be overall detrimental to the ability of said society as a whole to continue to exist in a state of order and peace, which, for the most part, means that, so long as no one gets hurt, it should be permitted.
So, tell me- who, exactly, is being hurt by homosexuality and bisexuality?
Yeah, I can't think of anyone either.
As an aside: I find it interesting that someone with an IQ of 174 can't be bothered to use funny things like proper grammar and spelling, nor can you apply any form of abstract thought or the like to homosexuality, nor can you bother to research your knee-jerk reactions to that which society teaches you is "wrong." Are you entirely sure of your test results?
(... what? Don't look at me like that. I chose homosexuality in nature as a topic for a research paper last year, and I have a pretty damn good memory for things like this.)