|
|
| Re: Gay protest in LA (383967) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Gay protest in LA |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Nov 13 10:47:25 2008, in response to Re: Gay protest in LA, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Nov 9 19:19:16 2008. And for all the going back and forth, that is where the issue lies. It IS different, and there is no way to change that. I do understand that people are "born" that way. People do NOT have a choice in who they are attracted to sexulally or arroused by. I do not know why that happens, but it does. Gays have no more control over getting arroused over seeing another guy than heterosexual guys have control over getting aroused over seeing women.But that all being said, NORMAL IS heterosexual. People can argue that any way they want, but nature provides that "NORMAL" is heterosexual. But that being said, I TOTALLY understand that a certain percent of the population does not fall into that category, as they ARE born the way they are. There is no "cure" for homosexuality any more than there is a "cure" for heterosexuality, as it's biological. However, gays have to remember, that even though they are born that way, they are STILL the minority of the population, and that is STILL nature's design that they are not any more than a small percentage of the population that for whatever reason were born like that. "Marriage" is still a word that I think is best left for religious institutions. And yes, a heterosexual couple is "married", even in the eyes of the state. Perhaps the best way to handle the whole thing is to leave that word "marriage" in the terms of religion, and have a state version of that in civil union recognizing that for both hetero or homosexual couples. I don't know what more they want, if CA allows civil union, I don't get this "marriage" stuff. |
|
|
|