MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Interesting...by playing off of the Mac ads that everyone is familiar with, it is also subconsciously suggests that PC is a person who doesn't support equal rights.

Sex and religions... the two things american are the most confused with... But both make lots of $... isn't it?

It doesnt say anything about PC not believing in equal rights... where did you get that from?

I'm conservative, use a Mac and, if a California resident, would vote Yes on Prop 8. Marriage is defined by what it is, the union of a man and women, not by what we decide. Anything is what it is by it's nature, as is marriage. You can't paint an apple orange and call it an orange just because you want it to be an orange. Simple concepts. Easy to understand. Homosexuality, if followed to it's logical conclusion, is the death of societies. Two men cannot reproduce. Two women cannot reproduce. Humans are not asexual. It's that simple. Males sexual organs don't work like they are designed when stuck in another man's butt. They do function quite appropriately when stuck in a women's sexual organ. So simple a child can understand it. What can't you "No to Prop 8" people understand it?

Kind of a straw man argument isn't it?

I'm thinking that the California Constitution is even hotter than Sarah Palin.

That having been said, best we leave her alone (at least when it comes to this issue.)

Straw man? Hardly. It's provable. Get a man to stick his sex organ in a man's butt and record how long it takes to get him pregnant and reproduce. Nothing straw-ish about that. And, do that long enough with men-on-men as well as women-on-women and eventually there will be no humans left. Now that's a straw man as straw men have no life in them, just straw.
Is that too simplistic, or must I get to the 'higher criticism' level and talk in absurdities and profundities that equate to a plethora of gibberish that serves only to wast time and energy?

Mike: Interesting...by playing off of the Mac ads that everyone is familiar with, it is also subconsciously suggests that PC is a person who doesn't support equal rights.

Actually, I think the Mac ads rather entrench the idea that PC generally doesn't get it — whatever it may happen to be at any time...!

These are good. They lead me to some arguably funnier No on 8 ads that similarly feature that clean white background which Apple made so famous:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpxqXQAiyT0

888eightyeight: Homosexuality, if followed to it's logical conclusion, is the death of societies.

So it's actually not your sexual and romantic desire but logical reasoning that makes you fall for a woman (Assuming you're a straght male)?

How do all the other species survive, then? And why are so many individualy among them gay as well?

Stunning to consider, really!


One could always construct "logical" reasons for discrimination, and that line of thought got a long and bloody history.

But the simple fact is this: Freedom and equality are so fundamental and so self-evident to any enlightened human being that they simply cannot be "reasoned" away!

I think "888" has his definitions wrong. Gay men don't have a monopoly on anal sex. Ask around. In any case, this isn't the preferred physical expression of every gay bloke, by any means. Seems "888" has a fixation about the anal thing.
In any case, there is no attempt by gay people to supplant the traditional reproducing family, like he seems to imply.
Probably gay people have some part to play in the evolution of the human tribe, other than having kids. Obviously it is beneficial to have gay people around. We aren't the only species to have non-reproducing individuals. It's part of nature.

It would have really been cool if those two guys would have started making out at the end of the commercial. It would have really shown us first hand what we are for voting against Prop. 8.

No-on-8
"Freedom and equality are so fundamental and so self-evident to any enlightened human being that they simply cannot be "reasoned" away!"

The Constitution was written to defend freedom and equality. You are free, because of that provision, to stick you male organ in another man's butt (assuming you are a homosexual male) if you so choose. "But the simple fact is" that if you and all the other males did it exclusively, the human race would eventually end. (no pun intended).

Simple and honest observation (scientifically, if you please) would easily come to a conclusion that a penis goes quite well with a vagina and with several reasonable reasons: reproduction and pleasure bonding the two consenting parties. However, from simple and honest observation a penis doesn't go quite so well inside an area clearly designed to evacuate body waste. (Isn't that romantic?) It's not 'just' logic, it's reasonable, sane, and sufficient good judgement, common sense, wisdom and solid rationale.

But, (again, no pun intended) because of your freedom, given by the Constitution, you are free to engage in such terminating activities.

And, if truly free and equal, are we all free and equal in pursuing murdering any one we please? If I am free, can I not just go kill anyone anytime? Obviously not. While free to do so, some moral restraint stops me and anyone from doing that. It's just wrong.
As is homosexuality. But, again, you (assuming you are homosexual) are free to engage in it, but with some serious and factual consequences.

Anyway,...

I didn't marry my wife because she was a good f***. When my daughter got married she never even brought up how good he was in bed. When I think of marriage my mind doesn't go straight for the gutter like yours seems to do 888eightyeight. A good marriage is based on a lot of things, the least of which is sex. Good luck California, too bad I'm in Illinois.

@ 888eightyeight

You should look some things up before you go spouting off as you look like a fool otherwise.

If we ignore the Bible for a sec and focus on your "natural" arguments, the facts are, that the same proportion of the animal population in the wild is homosexual as in the human animal population. Biologically speaking, homosexuality is as "natural" as the day is long for that proportion of the population.

Your argument that "if followed to it's logical conclusion" is basically an assumption that homosexuality will "spread" if it gets popular. That means you are kinda believing that stuff about how homosexuality is a "choice" and you are afraid that more people will *choose* to be that way. There has never been any rational support for that idea. In fact the biological facts completely contradict it.

If homosexuality was legal, hell, even if (like your personal worst nightmare probably), every kid of sixteen was tied down and forced to try it, it still wouldn't "spread."

Those that were gay would still be gay and those that were not would still choose to follow *their* hearts and have babies etc. You just don't know the facts.

just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean you have to deny gay marriage of other people. If it makes other people happy, then what's the reason to stop them?

we strongly believe that a person's fundamental rights-- including the right to marry -- should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue

Apple, you have permanently lost my business and support.
I'm saying this as a formerly loyal 25-year customer.

With views like that, you might as well replace your logo with a purple triangle, and start lobbying to ban marriage altogether.

Time to contribute to the local dumpster. I will not be associated with these views.

Nov 01, 08 - 01:11 pm Comment from: Macromancer

"Homosexuality, if followed to it's logical conclusion, is the death of societies. Two men cannot reproduce. Two women cannot reproduce. "

So if my girlfriend and I get married and decide not to have kids then we are the death of society? Part of that decision would probably be based on not wanting to bring a child into a world so full of ignorance and hate that you so eloquently displayed.

And you can't have something define itself. The whole purpose of defining something is to use an outside context to to put it within a frame of reference for people to understand. But being a supporter of Bush that you probably are, I'm sure you also support the way the president likes to define words by using the word itself within the definition, which even a second grader would not be able to get away with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWiytuW79vU

People are so stupid, they say they dont want the Government defining marriage because its religion that is not wanting prop 8 to pass and that it should be considered separation of church and state. Ummm hello its not a religious idea even though the Bible does say it is wrong as do many other religious books. Its a moral issue just as murder is a moral issue. Does that mean we have to redefine what murder is because what you feel might be wrong as far as murder might be totally different than the guy sitting in prision because he killed someone and thinks it was ok. If you start bending the rules then the rules have to be bent for other peoples thinking as well. There has to be a right and a wrong. Interestingly enough the bible says this will be one of many signs of the last times that people will actually start blending the rules to where there is no right or wrong anymore. People still dont want to listen though and I already know many people out there will probably make fun of this post but thats alright, I really dont care what people think. Just read the bible on the signs of the last times and you will todays headlines being quoted 2000 years ago. Go Read!!! Its easy!!!

Nov 01, 08 - 01:20 pm Comment from: HMCIV

@ almux, Giantsoup, 888eightyeight, Centris 650, Daner, ping, Norm, NO-on-8, Alex McKenna, The Crazy Christian, Chris M, Jeremy & @ 888eightyeight


Does any of this really matter? No, it does not. Because the Phillies won the World Series. I... am... s-o-o-o-o... happy. Nothing else matters. California can Vote on 8 and watch as society eats Rice-a-Roni. Meanwhile I am going I am going to the court house tomorrow to marry a cheese steak and a soft pretzel.

Chris, Jeremy and others,

I guess because I'm against Prop 8, in you mind, I'm stupid, ignorant, and all those other adjectives that are inevitable evoked in disagreements. That figures. No on can disagree with the homosexuals (those who've stolen a perfectly good word 'gay' to describe them inappropriately).

I did acknowledge people that pervert the clearly natural design of their bodies they can choose freely to engage in those activities. We are not animals or another version of any animal or a highly evolved animal. We are humans, clearly distinct from animals, even monkeys and apes. So comparing us to them can no more be fairly claimed than comparing us to tree bark or rocks, I've met some humans that are arguably as dumb as rocks! At least the evidence was high for the comparison.

Rationalization can clearly be contrived to justify most anything if one engages in it. Homosexuality is one of those instances. Acknowledging a large number of participants does not make it right as in justifying murder because 'everybody is doing it' doesn't hold up.

Someone can't justify murdering people because he has come to enjoy it and concludes he was born to do it.

Same goes with homosexuality, no matter how many people engage in it. And I certainly don't think everyone will adopt that lifestyle.

So why am I such a lunatic, a bad guy, a slug or whatever else you might imply simple because I disagree with the implications of Prop 8? Immediately I have no right to live anymore? Yep, now that does sound like animal qualities.

The problem here is Apple, a CONSUMER PRODUCTS company, is publicly supporting lifestyles that many consumers find deeply offensive.

Apple, STAY OUT OF POLITICS.
Smart companies like Apple should know enough to avoid the public arena...

But being a supporter of Bush that you probably are, I'm sure you also support the way the president likes to define words by using the word itself within the definition

Like Clinton and "Define 'is' "?

I certainly agree with the 'peace' comment. Apple has certainly left a bad taste in many of it's customers mouths.(Again, no pun intended.) If it truly is a personal thing with Steve Jobs, then he could have done it with personal money and in a personal way.

While I understand the view of 'straight pride,' the thought of giving up my Mac and going back to PC/Windows is worse to me than the penis in the butt situation. Although I can imagine it would feel the same way, like I was getting wrongly screwed!

888eightyeight

Not everything that nature and evolution throws up has to have a purpose in the development of mankind. Homosexuality is like our appendix: it's of no great use to the human condition but it's there and it does no harm so there's no point in getting stressed over it.

In other words: live and let live asshat.

Hey "Word games" - it's not nice to accuse the Clintonista's with their own accusations! The rules only allow them to criticize their opponents not vice-versa.

We are not animals or another version of any animal or a highly evolved animal. We are humans, clearly distinct from animals, even monkeys and apes. So comparing us to them can no more be fairly claimed than comparing us to tree bark or rocks

Remember you're dealing with a group that also believes in evolution theory, which for all purposes states the only difference between human beings and pond scum is a series of freak mutations.

So with that point of view, nothing is sacred. Desiring to copulate with anything in reach would almost seem reasonable....

Look out everybody! If prop 8 fails, we're all going to go gay! It's the only possible thing that could happen!

Dearest "Dirty Pierre le Punk."

Your point is so well taken, particularly when you resort to juvenile name calling. Ouch, that just hurt so much. And that name calling has certainly made me denounce all previous exclamations. I'm now reformed. Thank you.

BTW, the appendix, much to the popular myth that we don't need it or use it has been sufficiently repudiated. Update your 'fact' sheet. Anyway, with that thinking, you don't really need two arms either. Why don't you cut one off. You don't really need two legs either as proven by the handicapped lady born with no legs. She is doing fine as well. So why don't you cut one or both your legs off. You can survive and live a full life.

And I do live and let live. I have yet to, and never plan on, killing a homosexual because that is his chosen lifestyle (the born homosexual argument aside). I have a right to disagree with those I think are wrong, as do they.
I will refrain from using a derogatory epithet toward you in closing. (Although I am fighting the urge to do so.)

888
the reason your argument is false is that it sets up an logical inconsistency. NOT all men or women are or will be gay. If everyone drank 40 glasses of water every day everyone would die from malnutrion. It's ridiculous not reasoned. It's setting up an idea to destroy it hence "straw man"...

Continuing studies demonstrate consistently that the nature of genetic difference is so varied that making any kind of conclusion about the nature of hetero or homo sexuality is a logical minefield.
It is as varied as the human experience.
You clearly have other, unspoken issues that you are not stating, instead preferring to "logically" argue your point. Sadly your argument is both vapid and devoid of logic.

As for Apple's involvement... it's only when employers come to grips with the fact that people of all types can and do fall in love with one another and recognize that human relationships are worthy of protection under the law..not some biologically determined basis that we can approach some level of equanimity.
All the absolutely absurd arguments about sex with dogs, or pedophilia, or other sexual slurs have to be taken out of the discussion since there is NO scientific, empirical data that suggests that homosexuality can be equated at a higher incidence with them than heterosexuality.
Stop hating long enough to actually educate yourself and attempting to reduce love between human beings to a single physical act.

If they made gay marriage illegal, that wouldn't make me, or any other gay man marry women instead, because we simply aren't attracted to them in that way. You don't choose to to be gay. You just are.

@peace

I need to get some better reading glasses. When I first read the comment by "peace", I thought it read...

"Smart companies like Apple should know enough to avoid the pubic area..."

Since Apple is a public corporation, it should stay out of politics. The justification that this is not politics because it is a "civil rights" issue is just nonsense. Obviously, whether this is a civil rights issue or not is the crux of this debate. By taking that point as a given, Apple is pretending that there is no debate. In some ways, their justification is even worse than the fact that they are taking a position. The money they are donating belongs to the shareholders, not to Apple execs and the Apple BOD to do with as they please. This issue has nothing at all to do with the business of Apple.
MW: "wife" (which Apple must think is a very antiquated idea).

for some reason, proponents of Prop 8 think that by allowing gay people to marry will make everyone gay and thus ending repopulation and thus society as we know it. there are a lot of straight married couples who choose not to have kids. should they be mandated to be forced to have kids for the sake of reproduction?

just wondering, how many non-religious would vote yes on 8? I guess I'd like to know if people against gay marriage are relgious or if it's simply a general opinion.

You know I think many are missing the point, I personally think that people are free to do what they want, however...

Should homosexual couples be given even footing with heterosexual couples with regards to adopting?
(here you go down a slippery slope, how many would not give their babies a chance for a better life (ie, put it up for adoption) if this was the case?) Also is this fair to the child (possibly infant) who can't speak for himself?

How about: Should a private citizen (business owner) be forced to pay for his employee's homosexual partner's health care? (even if he is morally apposed to homosexuality)

Civil unions (which are legal) currently provide for most (or all) of what I hear people using as talking points, rThis is about wheather or not is is OK forcing everyone to agree that homosexuality should be no different that a normal marriage (which is what the Judge believed and thus ruled, the legality of that notwithstanding) When you begin to try to force you beliefs on every one you cross the line, no matter weather you are standing on the right or left side of that line.

Interesting they chose to copy the distinctive style of the "Get a Mac" ads and not the distinctive style of the "I'm a PC" ads. They must think the former is more effective than the latter.

Interesting also that they 'got' that the characters are things (Mac computer or Windows computer, Yes position or No position) and not people.

pr,
Again, anyone can rationalize the justification for anything their moralistic worldview calls for. This action is particularly evident in the homosexuality argument.

Calling my argument a 'straw man' is merely side stepping the reality of it. My statement simply follows through, to the end, what a homosexual worldview demands. That is, the death of society.

In it's pure and realistic form, homosexuality stops the clear design of the human race's possibility of perpetuation.

If a homosexual 'just is' then he or she will never seek any sexual relations with the opposite sex, if he/she is true to their stated belief of their 'being gay.'

There is absolutely no 'straw' to that. It's just simple biology, and observable. Am I saying that will happen? I certainly don't think so. What I am saying is the 'gay' argument holds no reasonable sense in being 'natural' and in fact, is in total opposition of their very make-up.

Any body with addictions choose to belief they cannot live without their addictions. They will swear by them and sometimes even die by them. Any addiction is insidious and crippling. I have some and know the power they have.

Homosexuals have chosen to redefine themselves to allow for it in their behavior. It is against nature, but they have chosen it to be natural.

I know homosexuals and have friends that are homosexual. I don't hate them and I don't castigate them. I do disagree with them and state that fact.

Apparently you think disagreement is equal to hate. My disagreement is 'hate speech?' So what is hate then? Anything that you disagree with? I guess you hate me then, by that statement. If that's the case, I say to you, stop hating and listening to disagreement.

I love my father, my uncle, my son, my male friends. Certainly I don't reduce love to a physical act, but I'm not so stupid to think 99% of 'gay' people engage in homosexual sex acts, otherwise, what's the big fight about. If there is no sexual acts going on between 'gay' people, then there is no issue, is there. So don't qualify my reasonable argument with some vacuous statement about hate, education, and reducing love between people.

@888eightyeight

You wrote:
"I guess because I'm against Prop 8, in you mind, I'm stupid, ignorant, and all those other adjectives"

And yet you also write:
"We are not animals or another version of any animal or a highly evolved animal. We are humans, clearly distinct from animals, even monkeys and apes"

However, most theologians (christian, muslim and jew at least) would not agree with you, there is a very important part of humans that is animal. Yes there something additional to just being animals, but to deny the fact that our bodies (at least) are animal, is something that not even a 10 year old with some school years would deny.

Sir: You have just proved in your own writing that indeed your are ignorant. And with a very bad religious education, and people like you give a very bad impression of religious people. This can and should change, just educate yourself.

One way to solve this would be to take away any legal rights or tax benefits that married couple's currently enjoy.

It is the nature of human societies to prefer some forms of sexual activity and to discourage others; in any case, human society always has and probably always will. I have not (yet) heard the pro gay marriage crowd support adult incest marriage or polygamy, for example. If this society will continue to regulate sexual behavior between adults, at least in terms of which will be officially sanctioned with the title "marriage," than the question is based on what principle? Marriage between a man and a woman has the POTENTIAL to create offspring--that is the point of the institution of marriage. It may not be the purpose of every individual union, but that is why the society supports this long-term bond between individuals. Other types of "marriage" would dilute this institutional purpose and ultimately render it pointless. In the more socially "progressive" societies in Europe, this core purpose was lost, and later generations no longer believe in even getting married. In fact, they ask--why, what's the point? It is no longer self-evident. The idea of marriage itself has been destroyed. Only some young "old fogies" still bother, and the "with it" crowd smirks at them. Both the proportion of the population getting married, as well as the number of babies being produced, has been radically reduced. As to your offhand comment that supporters of the current definition of marriage are reducing it to the act itself, we're obviously not saying that is all there is to marriage, but that act is an indispensable element to it; without it, marriage does not lead to reproduction and there is no reason for society to get involved.
BTW, it is a sign of misplaced pride (i.e., arrogance) for Apple to think it has any business taking sides in the public debate on this issue. In an ethical sense, it is also misuse of funds in a public corporation.
Kate

Nov 01, 08 - 02:15 pm Comment from: G4Dualie

@ h8

"Marriage is defined by what it is, the union of a man and women, not by what we decide."

You are a walking contradiction. After prefacing your idiocy with your resume, you very first sentence states we shouldn't decide and yet you support a bill that says we must!

I should have stopped right then and there, knowing these words are coming from a moron who probably measures his cock the same way he would measure a horses tail, from the ass out.

Homophobic Americans scare me.

Ok, ask the 10 yr old if that new born human baby in the hospital is a dog? a cat? a monkey? If so, then we can just let it live and grown up in a box in the back yard. Since, that is, it's just an animal. Maybe it can teach the other dogs and cats how to talk, communicate, develop a business plan and provide a living for it's possible future children/animal type creatures.

And please, tell me which of the 'most' theologians advocate the notion that humans are just glorified animals. Please, name them. I know of no reputable theologian (Christian or Judaic, that is) that hold the belief that we are nothing but animals plus a special something extra.

I'm 53, with an education in the field of Education, and about 35 years of study in numerous topics, including theology.

What are your qualifications to judge me as ignorant? And what 'religious' education do you have that is superior to what you have attacked in my blogs?

Hitler was a 'religious' person and he killed millions. Karl Marx was a 'religious' persons and he perpetuated a societal model that impressed the world with the destructive oppression of Communism. I'm not concerned with the reputation of 'religious' persons because a persons 'religion' can be anything.

So who's mind is feeble and naive? Mine? Or yours?

How old are you G4Dualie?
Eight? Maybe nine?

One day you might be able to learn how to disagree without having to utilize immature name calling and body parts.

But that's what I would expect from an 8 or 9 year old.

I am male. My father is a male and I am not fearful of him. My son is a male and I am not fearful of him. Many of my friends and acquaintances are male and I am not fearful of them. I even have friends and acquaintances that are homosexual and I don't fear them.

Why does it imply that if I disagree profusely with the acts of homosexuality that I am fearful of those people?

I guess it's important to make a label for the person that disagrees so as to categorize it as wrong, evil, and unfair.

Kind of like "Pro-choice" instead of killing babies before they are born.

Or like the "Fairness" doctrine to make sure that people hear opinions that they would otherwise choose not to hear because of their lack of value.

Or maybe like "gay" because homosexual doesn't sound as good and pure.

Read history - a marriage traditionally has NOT always been about simply "a man and a woman". Try telling that to a man and woman who wished to marry but were different "races" in the 60's (in sixteen states), or freed slaves who weren't allowed to marry even though they were a man and woman. With infertility rates rapidly increasing, the whole marry, go forth and multiply, and and woman thing may look pretty grim by 2020 anyway.

Tom Tomorrow sums it up nicely....

http://www.mindchanging.com/marriage/

12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Banned

Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.
Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
Gay marriage should be decided by people, not courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.
Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.
Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

http://www.mindchanging.com/marriage/12reasons.php

Nov 01, 08 - 02:47 pm Comment from: toby

RE: "straight pride"



My lady protest too much, me thinks.




If you're making computer purchases based on where the computer company stands on Civil rights issues INSTEAD of what computer gives you the most for your buck...


Well then...I think there might be some "Choosing" of sexual orientations going on here, just that, I don't think they're choosing to be gay...

Nov 01, 08 - 02:49 pm Comment from: DLMeyer

I think a couple of things have been over-looked here. Palin, Obama and Biden all said pretty much the same thing - equal rights WITHOUT redefining the term "marriage". Obama did not say "I'm pro same-sex marriage", he said he favored "civil unions", which would be very much like same-sex marriage, except for the name. Which is what Palin said.
Me? I'm straight and married to a member of the opposite sex. A number of my friends are homosexuals married to homosexuals. My marriage is in no way denigrated, damaged, slighted or redefined by their marriage. Sorry, homophobes.
So ... what does this all have to do with the Mac? OK, it has to do with Apple because the company has taken a stand on a non-technical issue. And ... ? Just because this is an important fight for justice long-denied and that the company that makes our beloved Macintosh has taken a stand - that I happen to agree with, no less - does not make this appropriate fodder for this site. Which is too bad, because we need to get the word out that this is about justice, not sexual practices.

888-
It's NATURAL to produce offspring so clearly in your worldview contraception of ANY kind (even the ancient rhythm method) is wrong. Since it's natural to produce children we should encourage all women to have as many babies as possible. Every sex act should only be for the purpose of producing children. Anything BUT man on woman, vaginal sex is wrong and should be forbidden.
Let's populate the planet! Cancer is natural my friend. So is mold.
The idea that there is only one way to be, live, co-exist, or love is rooted in judeo christian dogma.
Do you honestly believe with the enormous amount of hate and discrimination out there against homosexuality that it would EVER be someone's CHOICE? It's like choosing to be deformed in a world of perfect beauty. It's not a choice..EXCEPT in the sense that it is a choice to follow one's NATURAL proclivities and to seek freedom of who to love.
For the record...I've been with the same woman for thirty years...and I'm all male.