Curious, you earlier said a gay man evolved into a straight one. Repugnant but telling choice of words.
Why is it repugnant? Is it so hard to grasp that someone's sexuality can evolve into a taste for something that they previously didn't think they would like? In the case of my friend, he had never experienced sex with a woman, nor was he even all that interested in trying it, and had only experienced gay sex. When he finally had the experience with a woman in his late 30's he discovered, much to his surprise, that he actually liked it. Just because you might not be able to relate to this doesn't mean it's repugnant.
A repressed heterosexual?
Regardless. It wasn't the act that was repugnant.
While your wording might be denotatively accurate, evolution merely as adaptive change, connotatively, particularly in the context of sexual orientation, you don't see that as a little insenstive when more often than not we think of evolution as advancing? Certainly we can question which is more advanced, the land animals that came from the sea or the sea creatures that went back to water but as a rule, culturally, we think of that trip as a one way ticket. And the opposite direction we consider to be devolving to a lower level. Thus the complaint about the wording.
I didn't have a problem with the word evolving but I could see someone else taking issue and certainly you opened yourself up for attack. Evolving seems more of a vertical word. Use a horizontal word like transmuting maybe or just qualify your use in such an instance.
PS to whomever just sent an instant message. i didn't see who it was from and it showed up but then quickly disappeared just as I clicked submit on this post. sorry about that.