//It is the sexual practices of homosexuals that give homosexuals a poor image.//

Oral sex?

Jesus, it's another bloody Puritan. Let me guess: you believe that sex should only be had conventional missionary, under the covers, with the lights off, only for the purposes of procreation, and that if either party enjoys themselves too much some sort of sin has been committed.

What's next on the list in the Cromwellian Crusade Against Joy?
Banning Christmas?

//Dear foxy, gays can't have kids!

...sorry about that little truth!//

Nah, bollocks. There is nothing preventing human parthenogenesis, or 'virgin birth' - the development of an embryo from an unfertilised egg cell. Look it up in your Bible, Cu(II) Embarrassment.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/family-friends/patricia-spann-and-daughter-misty-spann-allegedly-in-incestuous-marriage/news-story/deb553e8369b91fd7df91110ba2dd3a3

The case may be child may not be the biological daughter?

Toni Lavis,
Jesus did have a human father, Mary was artificially inseminated and had no sex with a man till Jesus was born. She was still a virgin till Jesus was born.

//Jesus did have a human father//

Heresy.

Toni, to have kids by scientific means is obviously not really having kids.

If you want to push the boundaries of what's right and wrong go ahead but I have the right to say the application of technology has moral implications : like most people admit, including the science community!

//Toni, to have kids by scientific means is obviously not really having kids.//

Well according to the Gospels, parthenogenesis doesn't have to occur by 'scientific means'. But I guess you know better than the Bible, eh Cu(II) Embarrassment?