I'm still not adopting a gay.

Well, now that you're married, I'd have no problem if you did. :-)

QUOTE: I believe gay is from birth, but I have no reference materials on hand to back that up.

Coincidentally enough, I read within the last few days that actor John Barrowman (Doctor Who and Torchwood's Captain Jack Harkness) filmed a presentation he gave called John Barrowman - The Making Of Me, a portion of which discusses and explores ideas of whether or not being gay is a matter of nature or nurture.

[edit: formatting]

I suppose from a standpoint of biology, gentics etc the question of whether people are born gay is interesting. In real terms I just feel like it's a corner that people got pushed into because of all that invective about how "unnatural" it is ("unnatural" in that context usually meaning contrary to religious law), so the point about it being natural gets pushed as if its important.

And at some point the idea of choosing who to have sex with gets painted as suspect. Possibly because it then seems to become a "moral" choice. But what does it matter whether you choose to be like this or like that or you're just naturally like that? If it was really wrong it wouldn't matter whether you chose to be wrong or not. But since it isn't wrong, there's nothing wrong with choosing it.

Being gay or having sex with anyone (as long as they're consenting adults naturally) is okay purely as a matter of choice. If someone likes girls and really isn't attracted to boys but decides "Hey, I'll just check out what the fuss is about"? Perfectly OK. Some guy sucks another guy's dick because his grilfriend gets really turned on by it? Who am I to judge?

It's ok as a choice. Everything else is trivia.

Am I wrong in the (common) assumption that homosexuality is more hedonistic with a greater emphasis on physical traits of sexuality than is heterosexuality? 

Well, there are SOME in the gay community who fit this description. But then there are some in hetero land that do as well. Check out MTV or any issue of US/In Touch/Star magazines. If you're a straight male, you seem to be able to get away with it without raising too many eyebrows.

What does it matter if some gay couples are "more hedonistic"? I was pretty sure that one of the requirements for straight people adopting was "no hedonism in front of the children."? If we don't allow straight hedonists to adopt, we don't allow gay hedonists to adopt. Problem gone.

The same with this recurring "nightmare scenario" that keeps trotted about that gay couples will raise their adopted kids to be gay.
Well, I don't really see a gay parent telling his straight son that "Heterosexuality is vile and unnatural and you will burn in hell for all eternity if you put your wee-wee in a girl's yoo-hoo instead of sharing it with another boy like you're supposed to. And I love you too much to support that wicked choice."

Anyway, if adoptive parents, when confronted with the reality of their child's sexual preferences, try to change them to suit their own needs or views, that's wrong either way.

Yes, if a gay parent tries (consciously or sub-consciously)  to push a straight child towards "being gay", that's wrong. But it is also wrong when a straight parent tries (consciously or sub-consciously)  to push a gay child towards "being straight".  Yet we see no push to ensure that homophobes aren't allowed to adopt.

Now, that's too long. You just know that when he's done editing it done for clarity it'll read :
Accomplished more in several important fields than any president in U.S. history . He and his administration had qualities and backgrounds that were not found in previous administrations, certainly not to such a degree. His popularity levels were unequalled by any president in U.S History. His performance as President was superlative.

(There's a lot of things you can accomplish by dropping adjectives. "Worst" is also a superlative.  doing more wrong is still doing more.)