This is the thread that never ends
It just goes on and on my friends
Some people started typing here not knowing what it was
And they’ll continue typing here forever just because…
(go to the top and repeat)
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I know this is off the subject, but if being gay is natural, a choice, and all that, why can’t you have kids without a woman involved? Seems very contradictory to me.
[/quote]
Being gay is not a choice, any more than being straight is a choice. You can choose your sexual behavior, but you can’t choose who you fall in love with.
Until genetic cloning goes mainstream, you need a man and a woman to make children. That is the one consolation I have from being married for 9 years. Wouldn’t trade my 2 kids for anything 
Of course, I have gay friends with adopted or surrogate children, so marriage to a woman isn’t really required.
[quote]Bigd1970 wrote:
I think your last reply was a little ironic. Because, they already have that in California, they are called Domestic Partnerships, and they have all the rights of Married Couples.[/quote]
Wrong. As pointed out several times in this thread, gay marriage in California and Massachusetts is nowhere close to being equivalent to marriage for straight couples. Their benefits are strictly limited to the state level, and they are still denied the boatload of federal benefits available to straight couples. That is why “leaving it up to the states” isn’t and never will be acceptable. It’s a good first step though.
Again, you’re welcome to believe whatever you want. Billions of people on this planet have supernatural beliefs, and often those beliefs contradict one another. Clearly, not all of them can be right regardless of how convinced people are of the correctness of their particular beliefs. It may well be that none of them are right.
For that reason among others, supernatural beliefs belong in churches and synagogues, not in civil legislation. Keep the church separate from the state.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.
The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior (2001) asserts that homosexuality is not “a reversible lifestyle choice.”
Show where I once used the word reversible. I don’t pretend to know if it is or not. I am sure there are some who would choose heterosexuality if they could find the same love and acceptance from a member of the opposite sex. I am also pretty sure there are those who totally enjoy their gayness, and could never conceive of being with a woman.
Nonetheless, one chooses to be gay because of his nurturing, or lack thereof. Until there is overwhelming genetic proof, it can’t be anything but choice.
People will find love and acceptance where ever they can find it.
Short of genetic proof - the SG, and all the social workers in the world are just as wrong as you are.
[/quote]
This is the dumbest shit I’ve read in a while and I don’t even care about this subject much at all. First you reject what anyone else says about a subject including medical experts. Then, you say it can’t be genetics until it’s been proven to be genetics…huh? How can it definitely NOT be something, when it hasn’t been proven one way or the other yet? That’s the height of idiocy.