Tama naman. Pero the fact na they don't fall on the intent of the creation and its purpose, it is considered na lumampas sila sa limitation. Dapat yung definition ng paglampas ay hindi standard ng tao kundi standard ng Diyos.
wwwuuuu haaaaa wura!!!! hahahahahahah oo nga magkalimutan na!!
i'm not gay but...
f.u.ck the homophobics!!!!
we're all human..
May mga bak.lang mas "tunay na lalake" pa kumpara sa mga lalake talaga. Kailangan mo ng higanteng bay.ag para umamin, lumantad, at panindigan sa mundo na bak.la ka.
May mga lalakeng daig pa ang mga bak.la sa pagiging malandi at chismoso. Marami dito niyan.
At higit sa lahat, tao sila. Kailangang i-respeto.
May mga bak.lang mas "tunay na lalake" pa kumpara sa mga lalake talaga. Kailangan mo ng higanteng bay.ag para umamin, lumantad, at panindigan sa mundo na bak.la ka.
May mga lalakeng daig pa ang mga bak.la sa pagiging malandi at chismoso. Marami dito niyan.
At higit sa lahat, tao sila. Kailangang i-respeto.
i had 3 jobs in the past .. dati sa computer shop my boss is g@y
sa bank, ganun din g@y yung boss ko
IT press company g@y pa rin yung naging boss ko !!!!
they are taking over the world by storm haha..
Tama naman. Pero the fact na they don't fall on the intent of the creation and its purpose, it is considered na lumampas sila sa limitation. Dapat yung definition ng paglampas ay hindi standard ng tao kundi standard ng Diyos.
ito ay nakakahawa,
may kilala ako 3 sila magkakapatid, pare parehong [pichapie].
tiyaka pag naging [pichapie] ka na, di ka na pwede maging lalaki muli
Chiming in....
My faith dictates that I shouldn't embrace homosexuality, so I dont embrace it. I will teach my family and ensure that they share my faith so that they too know why they shouldn't embrace it. Though I do not like discussing my religious beliefs in this forum, I do feel it needs to be stated that it is indeed in the Bible that God does not allow his followers to be homosexuals or engage in homosexual activity.
I do understand however, that many have little control over what they desire especially when it becomes habitual like a vice. Smoking, for example. Smoking is a vice a person develops from his environment, no one is born with the urge to smoke. Or GAS, no one is born with the urge to buy tons of gear. Homosexuality is a vice, that is my stand until it is definitively proven otherwise. I will treat homosexuals with the amount of respect I give my smoker friends, Im okay with you being around me just dont smoke in my house or dont let me smell your smoke or else I will stand up and leave or ask you to leave. The only gay friends I will accept and respect are those that say "I know the Bible says its wrong, but I cant control myself", the rest will be treated quid pro quo.
Homosexuals are humans and they are entitled to their rights, and modern society entitles us to embrace what we want to (or not) believe in. For as long as they do not argue on a religious level and stand only for their rights as humans (in this society) we will get along. I can not and will not tolerate however, misplaced gay pride. Those that say you are wrong in believing the Bible or God made us this way, I say to them "prove it".
I have a close friend whose gay and I'm fine with him being gay. We get along very well, I sometimes have dinner with him and his boylet in my house. But he knows he can't use my guest room to f.ck.
Chiming in....
My faith dictates that I shouldn't embrace homosexuality, so I dont embrace it. I will teach my family and ensure that they share my faith so that they too know why they shouldn't embrace it. Though I do not like discussing my religious beliefs in this forum, I do feel it needs to be stated that it is indeed in the Bible that God does not allow his followers to be homosexuals or engage in homosexual activity.
I do understand however, that many have little control over what they desire especially when it becomes habitual like a vice. Smoking, for example. Smoking is a vice a person develops from his environment, no one is born with the urge to smoke. Or GAS, no one is born with the urge to buy tons of gear. Homosexuality is a vice, that is my stand until it is definitively proven otherwise. I will treat homosexuals with the amount of respect I give my smoker friends, Im okay with you being around me just dont smoke in my house or dont let me smell your smoke or else I will stand up and leave or ask you to leave. The only gay friends I will accept and respect are those that say "I know the Bible says its wrong, but I cant control myself", the rest will be treated quid pro quo.
Homosexuals are humans and they are entitled to their rights, and modern society entitles us to embrace what we want to (or not) believe in. For as long as they do not argue on a religious level and stand only for their rights as humans (in this society) we will get along. I can not and will not tolerate however, misplaced gay pride. Those that say you are wrong in believing the Bible or God made us this way, I say to them "prove it".
I have a close friend whose gay and I'm fine with him being gay. We get along very well, I sometimes have dinner with him and his boylet in my house. But he knows he can't use my guest room to f.ck.
i don't want to get into a debate in here regarding these things because nobody actually admits defeat, and i've seen ugly situations go around before in other threads. the point is that most people pick and choose things in scripture that agree with their views in order to justify their aversion towards certain things, i.e., homosexuality. surely, my personal view on holy books differ from others, and if it rubs believers the wrong way, i apologize in advance.
to be clear, i come from a position which considers the bible unreliable for few things, if any. will you be kind as to point out exactly what my stance's flaw is?Didn't I just did?
to be clear, i come from a position which considers the bible reliable for very few things, if any. will you be so kind as to point out exactly what my stance's flaw is?
Didn't I just did?
If you say the Bible is unreliable for a few things, then you are saying its reliable on things on the other hand? Or did you mean that the Bible is totally unreliable?
i apologize. i meant that i didn't consider it reliable. i edited the original reply to reflect what i was actually supposed to say.
so its totally unreliable? then why did you pick a video of a person quoting verses in the Bible? first view is unreliable and opposing view is unreliable, then you formed your opinion on the matter based on unreliable views. thats the flaw.
this video pretty much sums up my view on the matter.contradicts
i simply watched as unreliable views (IMO) were pitted against one another in the video. that was my point.and when you add those two with
the point is that most people pick and choose things in scripture that agree with their views in order to justify their aversion towards certain things, i.e., homosexuality.
oh, sorry about that, here's the implicit point i wanted to make:
(1) our society's aversion towards gay people (2) cannot be justified through quoting bible themes and scriptures, as other laws in the old testament along with the command to stone homosexuals exist but have largely been ignored, as what has been quoted in the video. (3) i find this seeming inconsistency (4) evidence that it is not because of a divine mandate that we have this attitude towards gays, but a primitive, perhaps reflex-like, response to things that are different from the norm that anyone willing to overcome it will be able to.
1. yup, agreed.
2. i do not quite understand this part you are trying to point out. my point is that we have simply chosen to hold on to one final prohibition because many want to justify their fear of the Other (in this case, gay people), whereas we have decided to forget all others. moses of course would have wanted each and every one of these laws observed, and then jesus in the new testament makes some honestly confusing assertions about simultaneously upholding and breaking the laws in place (hopefully you are at least aware of what i'm talking about), which IMO is the reason why a lot of Christians feel free to do what i feel is cherry picking in the scriptures.
3. if it's context we're talking about, then i guess the bible's stance on homosexuality has also become obsolete, given that more and more people are okay with it now, as with the other laws we decided not to follow anymore?
4. agreed.
P.S.: in order to relieve some tension, please understand that discussions like this might make stuff people write online seem like they have sarcastic or condescending undertones due to the moods the posters are having at the moment. i guarantee that if anything i write might sound sarcastic or condescending, this is not my intention.
2. You're actually right, I'm wasting my time with the Bible examples. It was supposed to be an attempt (and a ham-fisted one too) to show that believers today decide what is kept and what is discarded based on convenience and whatever it is that people still feel uncomfortable about, which IMO weakens the bible's "pitch" of being the infallible word of God, so to speak. of course, the arrival of Jesus after the events of the old testament makes it easier for people to be lax with their longstanding laws without feeling guilty about it, but i could argue that a lot of commandments Jesus himself left to his followers are largely ignored, including the good ones. and usually the same people who have abandoned these commandments are also the ones who strongly hold onto the old testament laws concerning homosexuality.
god's covenant with moses, of course, is something i expected believers to take as an important agreement, along with the various laws and commandments given to the israelites. christians with definitely go with the new covenant with jesus as a valid reply to no longer observing jewish law, but here are verses which i believe should be examined:
Matt. 5:17-19
what troubles me is that he in fact does not do this in many other parts of the gospels:
John 7:53-8:11
Mark 2:23-27
Luke 11:37-38 (you can read up to the end of the chapter if you'd like)
now you can definitely say jesus was god incarnate, and that he could do whatever it is he wants since he is god, but my personal view on this is that if i cannot count on a person (or god, for that matter) to do as he says on little things, then i cannot trust him with anything.
god's covenant with moses, of course, is something i expected believers to take as an important agreement, along with the various laws and commandments given to the israelites. christians with definitely go with the new covenant with jesus as a valid reply to no longer observing jewish law, but here are verses which i believe should be examined:
Matt. 5:17-19
what troubles me is that he in fact does not do this in many other parts of the gospels:
John 7:53-8:11
Mark 2:23-27
Luke 11:37-38 (you can read up to the end of the chapter if you'd like)
On topic: Homosexual acts were always been since time immemorial and will always be considered immoral and abomination in religious (judeo-christian) context.
Yung mga bastos na gay dudes ayaw ko
I'll never start thread that will bash gays here, i should have listen to sonik theres lots of fafa here :idea:
hey, dharz, you remember that thread i started regarding self-righteous people who do no good for the country? i feel you are an eligible candidate. it's crazy how you feel you can harbor ill will toward a subatantial portion of the population simply because they only creep you out. hindi yan tama bro.
We already know for a fact it isn't.Prove it. If it aint 100% fact, then its again just someone's opinion.
Prove it. If it aint 100% fact, then its again just someone's opinion.
it's frustrating to see people here espousing the same attitude that has turned a lot of gays into the guilt-burdened, miserable people i know some of them to be. with this l guess i'll just walk away from this and understand that not all people are ready to accept homosexuality in philippine society yet. sure, you can think of me as being gay, but if being gay means standing up for a group of people who for generations have been unjustly and harshly discriminated against for being what they are, then i don't mind being called gay.
for some reason i thought about gloc9 :))
it's frustrating to see people here espousing the same attitude that has turned a lot of gays into the guilt-burdened, miserable people i know some of them to be. with this l guess i'll just walk away from this and understand that not all people are ready to accept homosexuality in philippine society yet.
sure, you can think of me as being gay, but if being gay means standing up for a group of people who for generations have been unjustly and harshly discriminated against for being what they are, then i don't mind being called gay.
for some reason i thought about gloc9 :))
Homosexuality or fags will never be 100% accepted not just in the Philippines but everywhere. Reality and fact.
I sure hope this message was not intended for me as I wasn't at all referring to you with mine. But just the same, if yer one of 'em, then fine. Good for you, I guess.
it seems it was a mistake that i even had to involve the bible in the discussion. suffice to say not everyone accepts the more or less conditional infallibility many would give the bible. correct me if i'm wrong, but alongside the issue of homosexuality, the validity of (hopefully you don't cringe) slavery has been affirmed in both testaments?some animals eat their young, this is normal and occurs in nature, why don't we consider that normal in humans as well? Disease occurs in nature, shouldn't we cure it? Please provide proof that homosexuality is indeed normal, say genetic or prenatally determined. If you can't then you are also guilty of believing opinions, making their opinions similar to myths and superstitions as well.
as has been mentioned by bolt, homosexuality is normal in nature, with a certain percentage of animals displaying such tendencies. my view on this is that it's as normal as being left handed or being a gifted child, these latter two conditions being subject to ridicule and discrimination in the past as well. i no longer see any reason to feel any discomfort or aversion towards lgbts given my views, but everyone is entitled to their own pet peeves.
Nice share guitarwiz, you have my little respect. :)
here we go again.
as far as reality is concerned, we already know that homosexuality is not an abnormality. it has been discarded as a mental disorder and disease in the 70s. the view that it is a genetic anomaly has been disproved based on cross species research. if you want proof or factual backing, there are a lot out there.
why don't you prove to yourself based on scientific evidence that homosexuality is analogous to a vice, like smoking? See where that takes you.
as far as reality is concerned it has never been proven that homosexuality is genetic, period. no one is born that way. isn't the vagina and penis proof enough that same-sex intercourse is not normal?
but sure if you want to love, marry and sleep with other men, I won't stop you. Like I said, I'm fine with that.
gender and sexual preference has nothing to do with genitals. an asexual person is as normal as his homosexual and heterosexual brethren. a woman born without an ovary or a man born without testicles can prefer a heterosexual, a bisexual or an asexual person too.again prove it. sexual preference defines which sex one chooses as well as which sex he/she wants to have intercourse with, now tell me how can intercourse happen without using genitals? "nothing to do" is another one of your religious doctrines. or do you think having sex with your hands is considered intercourse?
of course you can be fine about them and what they do. but are your held beliefs more or less informed sufficiently? or the bible just said so and it has shaped you and your perception of homosexuality ever since...yes, its more well-informed as your unproven claims. but like I said in previous discussions, I will not discuss my religious beliefs with you or in this forum.
again prove it. sexual preference defines which sex one chooses as well as which sex he/she wants to have intercourse with, now tell me how can intercourse happen without using genitals? "nothing to do" is another one of your religious doctrines. or do you think having sex with your hands is considered intercourse?
yes, its more well-informed as your unproven claims. but like I said in previous discussions, I will not discuss my religious beliefs with you or in this forum.
as a christian, the bible says that God only created man and woman. No other gender is being discussed in the Bible. So that's my stand...
Chiming in....
My faith dictates that I shouldn't embrace homosexuality, so I dont embrace it. I will teach my family and ensure that they share my faith so that they too know why they shouldn't embrace it. Though I do not like discussing my religious beliefs in this forum, I do feel it needs to be stated that it is indeed in the Bible that God does not allow his followers to be homosexuals or engage in homosexual activity.
I do understand however, that many have little control over what they desire especially when it becomes habitual like a vice. Smoking, for example. Smoking is a vice a person develops from his environment, no one is born with the urge to smoke. Or GAS, no one is born with the urge to buy tons of gear. Homosexuality is a vice, that is my stand until it is definitively proven otherwise. I will treat homosexuals with the amount of respect I give my smoker friends, Im okay with you being around me just dont smoke in my house or dont let me smell your smoke or else I will stand up and leave or ask you to leave. The only gay friends I will accept and respect are those that say "I know the Bible says its wrong, but I cant control myself", the rest will be treated quid pro quo.
Homosexuals are humans and they are entitled to their rights, and modern society entitles us to embrace what we want to (or not) believe in. For as long as they do not argue on a religious level and stand only for their rights as humans (in this society) we will get along. I can not and will not tolerate however, misplaced gay pride. Those that say you are wrong in believing the Bible or God made us this way, I say to them "prove it".
I have a close friend whose gay and I'm fine with him being gay. We get along very well, I sometimes have dinner with him and his boylet in my house. But he knows he can't use my guest room to f.ck.
Naging maganda tuloy usapan dito kahit necro bump.
Good experience. :-D I'll never start thread that will bash gays here, i should have listen to sonik theres lots of fafa here :idea:
On topic: Homosexual acts were always been since time immemorial and will always be considered immoral and abomination in religious (judeo-christian) context.
Homosexuality or fags will never be 100% accepted not just in the Philippines but everywhere. Reality and fact.Agreed. As are people of different culture, religion and race to other people of different culture, religion and race.
I harbor i'll will? watta. So you dont care for some portion of the population.. sick please dont be the #2 :eek:If you don't consider what you said and I paraphrase
"all gays should be put in an island for NoKor bomb testing"is ill will I don't know if you understand the term.
I think there's someone here who truly, ardently embraces homosexuality. Hhhmmm, could it be... :lol: :lol: :lol:Hey buddy I know you're an intellectual man, but posts like these hinder healthy and civil discussions.
Hey buddy I know you're an intellectual man, but posts like these hinder healthy and civil discussions.
It's actually the Vice Ganda-type of homos that I want to exterminate. Ha ha!
i'm ok with gays but i still somehow get creeped out by this character :-o
bewbs ftw any day!!! :razz:
The discussion has never been healthy since the last couple of pages. :lol: But yeah, I hear you. Wasn't tryin' to add more fuel to the fire, though. That was just a childish response to a minor, indirect attack to folks (including me) who do not share the same views as "someone." I chose not to be too serious about this 'coz if I did, we'd prolly be on our 20th page now. :lol:
Anyway, for the record, I've got nothing against homos. Am completely fine with 'em as long as they act accordingly. It's actually the Vice Ganda-type of homos that I want to exterminate. Ha ha!
I heard this vice ganda guy even has some relationship with some FEU basketball player..
Hey just to clarify, I'm not trying to censor you buddy if that's what you really want to get across.
Yeah I too have a gripe with loud-and-foul-mouthed gays specially those in the public eye, since they become role models for the next generation homosexuals.
Although if you think about it, this too goes for loud and foul mouthed men and women, may they be politicians or celebrities (or the worst kind, politician-celebrities) LOL.
Ha ha may paki-alamero sa stand ng iba ang lalaki pa ng titik :lol: :lol: :lol:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Vice ganda :eek:
homosexuality is not just about sex. it's not just intercourse or defined by what sex this person wants to have intercourse with. it's gender identity. the genitals one is born with is not the only basis of sexual preference. see? you tell me you are well informed pero ganyan pala kababaw palang alam niyo. World War 2 pa yan e.
All these "well informed" myths people STILL hold is the source of ignorance and their unfounded objection.
k.
gender and sexual preference has nothing to do with genitals.
sexual preference defines which sex one chooses as well as which sex he/she wants to have intercourse with, now tell me how can intercourse happen without using genitals?defines not defined by, see the difference einstein?
TL;DR - dicks are awesome.Vaginas are not bad either. So are tits. Seriously, vaginas are great!
You Religious people are so FULL OF [gooey brown stuff].
Pasimple ang hirit, pailalaim ang saksak.
You preach about Humility in your places of worship; yet you act as if you are God himself.
Why do I say this?
Dahil you judge "Homosexuals and Lesbians" because of their so called “3rd Gender”, at with that, para nyo nang sinabi na indeed, TAYO LANG NA MGA 'STRAIGHT" ANG ANAK NG DIYOS, AT YUNG MGA [pichapie] AT TOMBOY HINDI KASAMA DUN.
The BIBLE YOU SAY?
Kung magsalita kayo nakapaka "absolute" nyo na tama ang interpretasyon nyo.
HOW SURE ARE YOU NA KAYO ANG MAY TAMANG LIBRO?!
HOW SURE ARE YOU NA TAMA ANG INTERPRETASYON NYO SA LIBRO?!
OF COURSE ANG ISASAGOT NYO, KESYO NASUSULAT NA ,"ANG MGA SALITA NG DIYOS AY HINDI DAPAT BAGUHIN".... SA TINGIN NYO NASUNOD YUN NUNG TRINANSLATE YUNG LANGUAGE NA ORIGINALLY GINAMIT SA "SUPPOSED NA PINAGMULAN", INTO OTHER LANGUAGES?
HINDI NYO BA ALAM NA YANG BIBLE NA HAWAK HAWAK NYO AY "TRINANSLATE LANG MULA SA ISANG LANGUAGE NA ILANG LIBONG TAON NA NA HINDI GINAGAMIT"?
HINDI BA NAG O OCCUR SA INYO NA SA PAGTATRANSLATE NG BAWAT PHRASE FROM THE LAGUAGE THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY USED BY JESUS AND THE APOSTLES ,TO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES, MALAKI ANG POSIBILIDAD NA "NA DISTORT" ANG MGA' SALITA?
English to Filipino pa lang malaki na distortion ng translation...ano pa kaya yung ARAMAIC TO ENGLISH?! Ni hindi pa nga totally sure na ARAMAIC GAMIT NA SALITA NILA NUON>>>PROBABLY A MORE OBSCURE DIALECT.
PERO SYEMPRE HINDI NYO MAIISIP YUNG MGA YUN DAHIL OO LANG KAYO NG OO SA KUNG ANO MAN NARIRINIG NYO SA MGA TAONG "MAKA-DIYOS" KUNO. YOU'LD RATHER "BE SAFE" AND "BELIEVE" SA KUNG ANO MAN INIINJECT SA INYO NG MGA SUPOSSED "RELIGIOUS LEADERS" NYO, RATHER THAN TO SEEK THE TRUTH.
GOD GAVE US FREE WILL. ALL OF US SHOULD USE IT.
REMEMBER: TAO RIN ANG RELIGIOUS LEADERS NYO AT MASKI SILA, PRONE RIN SA PAGKAKAMALI.
FOLLOW THE WRONG PATH AND YOU’LL END UP IN THE WRONG PLACE.
I DONT LIKE SEING MEN DRESSING UP LIKE WOMEN, PERO KARAPATAN NILA YUN AND I RESPECT THAT.
I LOVE HAVING SEX WITH WOMEN, …AND THOUGH THE THOUGHT OF GAY MEN HAVING SEX WITH OTHER MEN ABHORS ME, …CHOICE NILA YUN. AND I RESPECT THAT.
WALA TAYONG KARAPATAN HUMUSGA SA KUNG SINO ANG MAS NAAYON SA PANGININ NG DIYOS.
DAHIL KUNG MAYRON MAN AKONG KARAPATAN PARA HUSGAHAN ANG KAPWA TAO KO….KAYO ANG HUHUSGAHAN KO MGA HIPOKRITO!!!
I’M NOT AN ADVOCATE, BUT WHY AM I FURIOUS ABOUT THIS ?
BECAUSE ITS PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO [strawberry] THIS WORLD UP MUCH MORE THAN IT ALREADY IS.
YOU SPEAK OF UNITY ;YET YOU CHOOSE TO DISCRIMINATE.
YOU SPEAK OF PEACE; YET YOU PROVOKE WAR.
YOU SAY YOU ARE SERVANTS OF GOD; YET YOU ACT AS IF YOU ARE GOD HIMSELF.
YOU ARE NOTHING BUT SELF RIGHTEOUS BASTARDS.
I'LL BE SEEING YOU IN HELL.
Lets say by a stroke of scientific genius those myths are actually proven to be real, why stop at homosexuality then? lets throw in bestiality in the discussion to further the "progress" you are campaigning for. So that if you guys feel you identify more as male dogs or female cats, you will be free from ridicule.
ang puso mo brod (or sis?)... sino ba kalaban mo? dont worry you will see your likes in hell, mukhang alam mo na yung pupuntahan mo.
Its Brod, ....Sis. :-D
Sino kalaban ko? People who discriminate. Obviously hindi mo binasa post ko... or maybe "religious" ka at you choose to ignore the sad truth.
I really hate people who use the bible as basis para manghusga ng kapwa nila.
Again,
YOU SPEAK OF UNITY ;YET YOU CHOOSE TO DISCRIMINATE.
YOU SPEAK OF PEACE; YET YOU PROVOKE WAR.
YOU SAY YOU ARE SERVANTS OF GOD; YET YOU ACT AS IF YOU ARE GOD HIMSELF.
YOU ARE NOTHING BUT SELF RIGHTEOUS BASTARDS.
And let me ask you this...Sis..., How sure are you na sa langit ang punta mo?
on the surface this does sound like a valid response, makes you look intelligent. but in the end, wala rin pala. lets take a look.
Similar to a false prophet, contradicting. Consistent with your views though. funny, pero wala rin pala kung maka-posing kala ko malalim ka magisip. Pero to refresh you, para makita mo kung gaano ka kalalim umunawa. Eto yung sinabi kodefines not defined by, see the difference einstein?
sexual preference defines which sex one chooses as well as which sex he/she wants to have intercourse with, now tell me how can intercourse happen without using genitals?
Myths on Homosexuality
1. Its perfectly natural
2. They are born that way
Until this is definitively proven true, then these are relatively myths. Just like many of the religious doctrines you keep on preaching. But rest assured, I respect your religion as you have the right to it.
Lets say by a stroke of scientific genius those myths are actually proven to be real, why stop at homosexuality then? lets throw in bestiality in the discussion to further the "progress" you are campaigning for. So that if you guys feel you identify more as male dogs or female cats, you will be free from ridicule.
you hate people who discriminate...but then you are generalizing and discriminating us who believe in the Bible, sino ba itong sinasabi mong
YOU SPEAK OF UNITY ;YET YOU CHOOSE TO DISCRIMINATE.
YOU SPEAK OF PEACE; YET YOU PROVOKE WAR.
YOU SAY YOU ARE SERVANTS OF GOD; YET YOU ACT AS IF YOU ARE GOD HIMSELF.
YOU ARE NOTHING BUT SELF RIGHTEOUS BASTARDS.
lahat ba ng naniniwala sa Bible ay ganito?
at ito ang sad truth, we are spiraling down the pit of immorality na suportado ng kagaya mo...yan ang sad truth.
At sa tanong mo, di ko pa alam kung sa langit o impyerno ang punta ko, Diyos lang ang nakakaalam nun pero sinisikap ko na mabuhay ayon sa kalooban ng Diyos para mapunta sa langit, at never kong sasabihin sa kanino man na magkikita kami sa impyerno na gaya mo na sure na sure ka na sa pupuntahan mo.
you hate people who discriminate...but then you are generalizing and discriminating us who believe in the Bible
sino ba itong sinasabi mong
YOU SPEAK OF UNITY ;YET YOU CHOOSE TO DISCRIMINATE.
YOU SPEAK OF PEACE; YET YOU PROVOKE WAR.
YOU SAY YOU ARE SERVANTS OF GOD; YET YOU ACT AS IF YOU ARE GOD HIMSELF.
YOU ARE NOTHING BUT SELF RIGHTEOUS BASTARDS.
at ito ang sad truth, we are spiraling down the pit of immorality na suportado ng kagaya mo...yan ang sad truth.
At sa tanong mo, di ko pa alam kung sa langit o impyerno ang punta ko, Diyos lang ang nakakaalam nun pero sinisikap ko na mabuhay ayon sa kalooban ng Diyos para mapunta sa langit, at never kong sasabihin sa kanino man na magkikita kami sa impyerno na gaya mo na sure na sure ka na sa pupuntahan mo.
It might also help to reconcile where this display of passive bigotry or uneasiness comes from through psychiatric help or evaluation.
Learn more. People only fear what they don't understand.
Kini claim nyo na absolutely kayo ang tama....that is tantamount to saying na lahat ng nasa labas ng "circle" nyo ay mali. Meaning mali ang Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists,and the rest of other religions.
So how can there be peace, kung kayo mismo ang nagpo provoke ng argumento?
So thats it. Brain activity high attacking bible and thinking beyond God-Like.
Prestine whiners.
*No word can express thousand facepalm for ###$ insulting Bible*
Di ko masyado maintindihan. Parang sirang subtitle sa pirated dvd o mga linya sa mga korean stationary. Tagalog nalang dre.
Di ko masyado maintindihan. Parang sirang subtitle sa pirated dvd o mga linya sa mga korean stationary. Tagalog nalang dre.
^uy double post ka...masyado kang gigil, ang puso mo ulit.
Actually ito yung sabi mo "You Religious people are so FULL OF [gooey brown stuff].", so hindi ka naggeneralize? trying to steer the topic somewhere else ba? Naghahanap ng kakampi??? hehehe
Ito ang sabi sa Bibliya, Romans 1:26-32
"26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Ako ba ang naghusga?
sure ka na they tolerate homosexuality?
^uy double post ka...masyado kang gigil, ang puso mo ulit.
Actually ito yung sabi mo "You Religious people are so FULL OF [gooey brown stuff].",
Ito ang sabi sa Bibliya, Romans 1:26-32
"26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."
Ako ba ang naghusga?
Kini claim nyo na absolutely kayo ang tama....that is tantamount to saying na lahat ng nasa labas ng "circle" nyo ay mali. Meaning mali ang Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists,and the rest of other religions.
So how can there be peace, kung kayo mismo ang nagpo provoke ng argumento?
sure ka na they tolerate homosexuality?
wahh??? atheist gangnam detected. :lol: :lol:
Calling back up.. high level mind to the rescue.. :-D
So thats it. Brain activity high attacking bible and thinking beyond God-Like.
Prestine whiners.
Nangilo ako dito sir :-D
Sabi nga ng isang forumite, "Parang kuko na ikinakaskas sa blackboard " :-D
My apologies for the double post. Phil music’s system was “acting up” kaya na double post ko . Is it really an issue maski binura ko agad yung isa nung nalaman kong double post?
BTW,Ok lang ang puso ko…I have a healthy heart. :-D
Uy buti naman binasa mo na yung unang post ko sa thread na to. :-D
Hindi gaya nung unang hirit mo sakin, wherein kumampi ka lang agad sa kapwa mo “religious kuno” without reading my post first.
Then again, tama ka, hindi ko dapat igeneralize.
Dahil hindi naman lahat ng “naniniwala” sa bible ay kapareho mong MAPANGHUSGA.
So who do I hate?
I hate people who use the bible as basis para manghusga ng kapwa nila.
I also hate the people na kung magsalita about the bible, para bang napaka absolute nila, na sila ang tama".
Are you one of them?
Heto:
^^^ Guilty as charged. ^^^ :-D
What a question.
With everything you posted, hindi mo ba hinuhusgahan yung Homosexuals at Lesbians?
sure ka na they tolerate homosexuality?
Sinabi ko ba na they tolerate homosexuality? Hindi di ba?
Ang sabi ko dito, you are claiming na kayo ang may “tamang libro” at “tamang interpretasyon ng libro”, which is the same as saying na yung mga religions or religious sects sa labas ng circle nyo, ay “mali”.
Again,….steering the topic somewhere else? :-D
Ang labo mo brod, kelan ako nanghusga? nagqoute na nga lang ako ng verse sa Bible para malaman mo kung ang sinasabi doon e.
Hindi ang tao kundi ang maling ginagawa ng tao ang pinatutungkulan ng Bibliya...gets mo na?
haha tatawa ko. XD wag ka nalang magreply jan, ser. ang labo e. wala naman patunguhan usapan nyo e.
'guilty as charged' na nga ako sabi nya e... :eek:
tapos ako yung nanghuhusga...ang labo :eek:
Like it or not it is true. Your genitals ultimately means nothing to your sexual preference and gender identity.Ultimately though, however ultimately you've already put it, whichever gender you identify with, your genitalia will define what kind of sexual relations you have as it is the main tool for sexual activity. How hard was that to grasp?
Consequently, if a man has intercourse with a woman, it doesn't mean he is not gay or bisexual. Similarly, a transexual man, can have intercourse with a transexual woman yet their gay gender identities are still intact while copulating the same as any man and woman.Cop out. If a man has intercourse with a woman, it doesn't mean he is not gay or bisexual. True, It does say he had heterosexual intercourse, regardless of which gender both of them identify with.
And just to make it clear, sexual preference is not the same as gender identity and sex as you have put.akala ko ba matalino ka? where did I say sexual preference is the same as gender identity and sex? or are you just being consistent as to twist what I say to mean something else just to win an argument? luma na yan
Gender identity is the gender you identify with regardless if you have a vagina, a penis or both, or none. Of course you can't choose your sex, you are born with it. Sexual preference is second fiddle to your gender identity also regardless of your sex. See the difference Einstein?Call me Uncle Bob na lang, I called you Einstein first e. Einstein, you are confusing gender identity with gender role.
The genitals are there. It gives society a basis for your sexual role in society, but ultimately won't mean anything when one comes to terms with his gender identity.sabi ko na e. Gender identity and gender role is different. Sex (meaning intercourse) always involves genitals.
No. Obviously, bestiality is a whole different matter. A US Marine stationed in Afghanistan can have sex with a female goat but he doesn't identify as a male goat. Someone who fvcks dogs can identify as straight, bisexual or homosexual but doesn't identify himself to be canine.Sure but its not just US Marines in Afghanistan that engage in this act. Lets say he has intercourse with just dogs and he prefers this sexual activity over straight, bi nor homosexual activity. A pure zoophiliac. Lets throw that in the conversation so we can "progress" the way you want to progress
It is a whole different topic, and is immaterial to the discussion of homosexuality or LGBT rights. Furthering my assessment that you view gender identity as a consequence of your sexual activity which is a very old and discarded model.It is a whole different topic, yes. That is why I want to throw that in the conversation. Since you think progress means granting unconditional acceptance to gender identity, lets take that a step further and speed progress up a notch by starting discussions on Species Identity. Inter-species intercourse occurs in nature and is perfectly natural, how does that not differ from your arguments on homosexuality?
I see that your views are still beholden to past orthodoxies, stereotypes and old caricatures of the human sexual continuum. I suggest exposing yourself more to newer data that could further flesh out your understanding of the subject. It might also help to reconcile where this display of passive bigotry or uneasiness comes from through psychiatric help or evaluation.Well, we have seen your deficiency in comprehension and reason, I wouldn't trust your assessments let alone any of your recommendations.
Learn more. People only fear what they don't understand.Suuuuure. We have just seen how poor your arguments are based on the data you're exposed to, against that I would consider I have learned enough.
Sige na nga, kunyari na lang matalino ka at alam mo yung pinagsasabi mo and indulge you with another response, disregarding your obvious cop-outs.
Ultimately though, however ultimately you've already put it, whichever gender you identify with, your genitalia will define what kind of sexual relations you have as it is the main tool for sexual activity. How hard was that to grasp?
Let me see if you can actually grasp the idea. There are only 2 biological genders, Male and Female.
If a male chooses to identify as a female, does he become homosexual? Not yet. Depending on culture and environment, the idea of what a female's identity/lifestyle will vary. Only when he becomes romantically attracted, sexually attracted and/or engage in sexual activity wiht another male does he become homosexual or he does a homosexual act.
Sexual preference is defined by which direction your sexual interest is homo, hetero or bi. Regardless of which, sexual activity will always involve genitalia. Sexual preference defines sexual activity. See? o di wala rin na naman yung punto mo?
Cop out. If a man has intercourse with a woman, it doesn't mean he is not gay or bisexual. True, It does say he had heterosexual intercourse, regardless of which gender both of them identify with.
Just so we're on the same page, homosexuality is homosexuality. A man identifying himself as a woman doesn't mean he is automatically homosexual.Unless that's what you have been thinking all along then ang babaw pala ng pseudo-scientific analytical na pagiisip mo. Only when he engages in homosexuality does it make him homosexual.
Refer to my first answer. You said people can choose their sex. Well, no. Not even close. And I never confused gender identity with gender role. Gender roles differ across societies and are conferred to you by your social group and are remotely of interest to the topic at hand.
akala ko ba matalino ka? where did I say sexual preference is the same as gender identity and sex? or are you just being consistent as to twist what I say to mean something else just to win an argument? luma na yan
Call me Uncle Bob na lang, I called you Einstein first e. Einstein, you are confusing gender identity with gender role.
sabi ko na e. Gender identity and gender role is different. Sex (meaning intercourse) always involves genitals.
Sure but its not just US Marines in Afghanistan that engage in this act. Lets say he has intercourse with just dogs and he prefers this sexual activity over straight, bi nor homosexual activity. A pure zoophiliac.
Lets throw that in the conversation so we can "progress" the way you want to progress
It is a whole different topic, yes. That is why I want to throw that in the conversation. Since you think progress means granting unconditional acceptance to gender identity, lets take that a step further and speed progress up a notch by starting discussions on Species Identity. Inter-species intercourse occurs in nature and is perfectly natural, how does that not differ from your arguments on homosexuality?
Well, we have seen your deficiency in comprehension and reason, I wouldn't trust your assessments let alone any of your recommendations.
Suuuuure. We have just seen how poor your arguments are based on the data you're exposed to, against that I would consider I have learned enough.
Fact of the matter is, homosexuality is the end of the evolution of any species
LOL at these "defenders" of homosexuality blurring gender differences just to have an argument regarding the matter. Fact of the matter is, homosexuality is the end of the evolution of any species. What? You say that homosexuality is also present in animals? Why don't you go ahead & eat your own [gooey brown stuff] too or [strawberry] your own mother since animals also seem to do that.
Still waiting for a valid argument in defense of homosexuality.
LOL at these "defenders" of niggers blurring racial differences just to have an argument regarding the matter. Fact of the matter is, fvcking niggers and being niggers is the end of the evolution of any species. What? You say that "inter racial breeding" is also present in animals? Why don't you niggers go ahead & eat your own [gooey brown stuff] too or [strawberry] your own mothers since animals also seem to do that.Right, being born with black skin is comparable with an acquired sexual preference. Got it.
Still waiting for a valid argument in defense of niggers.
Right, being born with black skin is comparable with an acquired sexual preference. Got it.you got him googling "Civil Rights Movement" hahaha. id respond later, this date's boring me so i just had to go on the net.
I bet you also think that the struggle to legalize gay marriage is the same with the Civil Rights Movement. Genius, I say.
Mas Vakla pa yung mga lalake na who make fun or ridicule homosexual people.
Right, being born with black skin is comparable with an acquired sexual preference. Got it.
I bet you also think that the struggle to legalize gay marriage is the same with the Civil Rights Movement. Genius, I say.
Still waiting for a valid argument in defense of homosexuality.
I can see clearly now :-D
^yikes :-o
sinuot ko lang eyeglasses ko, may offer ka na agad na ganyan :lol:
I have some questions though...which you might be able to enlighten us.
Is it not homosexuality is a manifestation of a person's way of thinking with regards to his/her sexual preference? Isn't it what a person THINK he/she is and therefore I say, it is a 'psychological' case.
Has anybody already quantified the capacity and capability of a human mind?
And who made the studies to come up with the conclusion that homosexuality is perfectly normal? Psychologists right?
Is it not psychology a pseudo-science?
Would anybody believe a group of people who call themselves 'scientists' but miserably fail their field to meet the five basic requirements to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability?
I would be really interested on how you come up to the conclusion that what you are defending is perfectly normal. Which literature? Who did the studies? How they did it?
As what one of our distinguished forumer said here few pages ago, "prove it, if it aint 100% fact, then its again just someone's opinion"
^sana nagbanggit ka man lang sana ng sources (literature) mo para hindi na kami mahirapang maghanap. Paano mo kami makukumbinsi sa paniniwala mong iyan?I don't think it's his responsibility to convince you. If you really want to believe, you'd have looked things up on your own.
^sana nagbanggit ka man lang sana ng sources (literature) mo para hindi na kami mahirapang maghanap. Paano mo kami makukumbinsi sa paniniwala mong iyan?
IMO, homosexuality in human kind is purely psychological. It's just some group of so-called 'scientist' said that it is not anymore, hindi naman 100% proven, paano naman mapo-prove e hindi naman scientific method ang ginagamit nila at no way na madadaan nila sa scientific method.
I don't think it's his responsibility to convince you. If you really want to believe, you'd have looked things up on your own.
It's pretty easy, actually. You can Google it, and you'd get a hit such as this one:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Don't worry, it's backed by a substantial bibliography, drawing from research across more than a century. If you don't trust that, then you'll have to go to a library and go through a LOT of academic journals. You could probably start by looking up the references of the above article.
You're opining that it's a psychological issue probably because you're seeing a correlation, among other things. And I'm inclined to agree that maybe there is. But the problem is that correlation does not necessarily equate to a cause-effect relationship.
Just set a meetup , get a motel room and get it over with.
Mas Vakla pa yung mga lalake na who make fun or ridicule homosexual people.
However, homosexuality is like religion and having a big D I C K. You may be proud of it but you shouldnt go announcing it to every person's face and to their discomfort.
hindi pa rin ako kumbinsido... here's a quotation from a scientist's point of view regarding your positionFirst, you mistake my reply for a position. I was merely helping you out in finding a starting point where you can see material supporting what Bolt Thrower posted. Second, what are you trying to say with the quote, anyway? The first paragraph in the conclusion is actually more encompassing of the whole article rather than your quote.
"Homosexuality was until recently listed as a mental illness, one believed to be amenable to treatment, in spite of the total absence of clinical evidence. Then a combination of research findings from fields other than psychology, and simple political pressure, resulted in the belated removal of homosexuality from psychology's official list of mental illnesses. Imagine a group of activists demanding that the concept of gravity be removed from physics. Then imagine physicists yielding to political pressure on a scientific issue. But in psychology, this is the norm, not the exception, and it is nearly always the case that the impetus for change comes from a field other than psychology."
Syempre di ka talaga makukumbinsi niyan kasi tingin mo pseudo science ang psychology. Siguro subukan mo muna patunayan sa sarili mo kung pseudo science nga ba talaga ang psychology bago ka mag research ng ganyan.So, if psychology is a pseudoscience, and homosexuality is psychological, where does that leave homosexuality?
Ang labo mo brod, kelan ako nanghusga? nagqoute na nga lang ako ng verse sa Bible para malaman mo kung ano ang sinasabi doon e.
Hindi ang tao kundi ang maling ginagawa ng tao ang pinatutungkulan ng Bibliya...gets mo na?
Lumulusot ka pa e itong ikaw ang mapanghusga. :eek:
Ang labo mo brod, kelan ako nanghusga?
nagqoute na nga lang ako ng verse sa Bible para malaman mo kung ano ang sinasabi doon e.
Hindi ang tao kundi ang maling ginagawa ng tao ang pinatutungkulan ng Bibliya...
:lol: Sabi na eh na-gay-punked ka ha ha ha... hindi kelangan ng intellectual sa mga highly brained na tulad nila...
Kahit nga yun TS na matagal ng nag start nito na gay-punk pa :lol: :lol:
hindi pa rin ako kumbinsido... here's a quotation from a scientist's point of view regarding your position
"Homosexuality was until recently listed as a mental illness, one believed to be amenable to treatment, in spite of the total absence of clinical evidence. Then a combination of research findings from fields other than psychology, and simple political pressure, resulted in the belated removal of homosexuality from psychology's official list of mental illnesses. Imagine a group of activists demanding that the concept of gravity be removed from physics. Then imagine physicists yielding to political pressure on a scientific issue. But in psychology, this is the norm, not the exception, and it is nearly always the case that the impetus for change comes from a field other than psychology."
But out of curiosity, can you, in turn, give us the same courtesy and provide empirical research conducted within the last 10 years that supports your opinion? Kami naman ang kumbinsihin mo. Mahirap kasi kung hanggang IMO ka lang while you reject academic research.
Para kang isang bata na nahuli ng Nanay nyang nagma.mastur.bate.
Huling huli ka na, nag-de-deny ka pa.
Linisin mo na lang ang kalat mo. :-D
Kelan ka hanghusga? Basahin mo lahat ng posts mo sa thread na to. Basahain mo rin posts ng kinakampihan mo.
^^^^ Mismo!. Again, GUILTY AS CHARGED.
I raised the raised these questions di ba? :
1.)Are you one of those that use the bible as basis para manghusga ng kapwa nila?
2.) Are you one of those people na kung magsalita about the bible, para bang napaka absolute nila, na sila ang tama?
Ikaw na mismo nagpapatunay nyan :-D
Eh sino ba ang gumagawa? Di ba TAO?
KUNG HINUHUSGAHAN MO NA “MALI”, AS PER YOUR “STANDARDS” YUNG “GINAGAWA NG TAO””, …EH DI HINUHUSGAHAN MO NA “MALI” YUNG TAO.
gets mo na? :-D
Lumulusot ka pa e itong ikaw ang mapanghusga. :lol:
Pero kahit ilang ulit mo pa basahin ang mga posts dito bale wala.
Hindi mo makikita ang mga dapat mong Makita , kung nakapikit ang iyong mga mata.
Syempre di ka talaga makukumbinsi niyan kasi tingin mo pseudo science ang psychology. Siguro subukan mo muna patunayan sa sarili mo kung pseudo science nga ba talaga ang psychology bago ka mag research ng ganyan.
What makes this irrational belief different from the belief that homosexuality will be the end of the evolution of our species? Genius, I say.Irrational? So you think mankind would have lasted 20,000 years if they'd copulated with the same sex? Genius? No. Common sense? Yes.
Did you even bother to find out that homosexuality gives more evolutionary advantage to the virile straights? And since homosexuals just keep to their own and don't breed the straight genome survives better in the gene pool? And so it has been for millions of years already of human existence.Humans pass on their genetic information to their offspring, this includes their strongest traits (better resistance to some diseases, etc) & unfortunately, also their weak traits. The resulting offspring would have the strongest traits of both the parents, ensuring better chances survival. Tell me, how is this possible in a homosexual setting?
Did millions of years of homosexuality hamper our species and other species evolution and survival? We are still here more populous than ever and still evolving.
And no. Sexual preference is not as so much acquired. There are more complicated mechanics involved such as genetic pre-disposition, brain structure, pre natal hormonal exposure, identity empathy and psycho-sexual need. To say that sexual preference is just acquired is putting it far too simply.News flash, there is still no "gay gene". There is still no proof that people are born gay.
Aw [gooey brown stuff], you got me there.Still waiting for a valid argument in defense of homosexuality.How about a proliferation of good lesbian p0rn?
what a clown :idea:
well i dont think I need to convince you, it is my personal opinion is it not?Then I rest my case.
Irrational? So you think mankind would have lasted 20,000 years if they'd copulated with the same sex? Genius? No. Common sense? Yes.
Humans pass on their genetic information to their offspring, this includes their strongest traits (better resistance to some diseases, etc) & unfortunately, also their weak traits. The resulting offspring would have the strongest traits of both the parents, ensuring better chances survival. Tell me, how is this possible in a homosexual setting?
News flash, there is still no "gay gene". There is still no proof that people are born gay.
So, if psychology is a pseudoscience, and homosexuality is psychological, where does that leave homosexuality?
question. bakit tinawag na homo erectus ang mga homo erectus ?
^take away the immorality...yes, they do deserve respect and love IMO.
Thank you for answering that question.
Now Sir, please be kind enough to enlighten us...
How you can gauge what is "immoral" and what is not?
Guilty as charged na nga ako sayo, kino-cross examine mo pa ako :eek:
Ibalik ko sayo ang tanong, how you can gauge what is "immoral" and what is not?
Yes. Irrational. Because for the millions of years of homosexuality present in mankind, the variation never exceeded 20% of the population same as every other species. Not every human is homosexual and the variation stays uniform across generations. It's the same as left handed people, their population stays the same. So yes, mankind will exist and survive the same even if more homosexuals came out.No, you're not answering the question. I never presented a "doomsday scenario" wherein there will come a time when all people will become homosexuals. I asked if mankind would've lasted 20,000 years in this world had they all had sex with the same gender. Let me ask you this, then: Do you think homosexuality is normal? And no, the world "normal" is not subjective so don't ask me to define what it is.
Gays also have the capacity to donate sperm to females who have no sex partners who want children, so is that other chance. Test tube babies have good chances of being twins. Better numbers.So gay jizz is better than normal people jizz because you'll have a higher chance of having twins? I need a citation on this since I'm too lazy googling today.
Newsflash. I never said there is a gay gene. Pre-disposition is what i said. No body is born left handed but are only pre disposed to it. That is why I listed the common factors that might "influence" the variation. And if the child is predisposed there is no telling he will be JUST gay, he can become asexual, trisexual, bisexual or agender. Like genius as a matter of nature and nurture, a child can be pre disposed to high levels of IQ but there is no telling what kind of genius he will become. Yet having two high IQ parents don't mean the resulting offspring is genius too. If it was a matter of gene, we would know when and how the variation will occur like baldness, colorblindness or eye color.Ok so you're basically admitting that this predisposition to being gay is not genetic but is influenced by the environment, correct?
And yes, sexual preference is not a choice. Did you choose during in grade school who your crush is? Dave or Anna? No. It just happened you were curious about Anna even if your patotoy is not yet capable of erecting or making sense of these emotions.Being born male/female or black/white/Asian is not a choice, but sexual preference is. All kids go through a phase of sexual confusion, but with the right environment & guidance they will grow out of it & establish their sexual identity.
No, you're not answering the question. I never presented a "doomsday scenario" wherein there will come a time when all people will become homosexuals. I asked if mankind would've lasted 20,000 years in this world had they all had sex with the same gender.
Let me ask you this, then: Do you think homosexuality is normal? And no, the world "normal" is not subjective so don't ask me to define what it is.
So gay jizz is better than normal people jizz because you'll have a higher chance of having twins? I need a citation on this since I'm too lazy googling today.
Ok so you're basically admitting that this predisposition to being gay is not genetic but is influenced by the environment, correct?
Being born male/female or black/white/Asian is not a choice, but sexual preference is. All kids go through a phase of sexual confusion, but with the right environment & guidance they will grow out of it & establish their sexual identity.
I would gladly answer that question, so that you and I can both state where each one of us are coming from, to maybe have our minds meet,.... but only after you exhibit a little more "courtesy" by answering the question first.
After all, I was the first one who asked that question di ba?
...Not unless, you fear that you are threading "dangerous waters" and your trembling feet are "shaking" your "stand".
Again, "how do you gauge what is "Immoral" and what is not?
It is simple, akala ko na gets mo na...what is immoral to God is immoral to me...you have a problem with that? Guilty as charged? LOL :-P
Now you tell us, how do you gauge what is "Immoral" and what is not?
We cant educate a fool. No matter what you do with it. Its ENOUGH!! :-DParang subtitles ng pirated na DVD.
Dafuq has happened here? :?Hahaha didn't you post this in the other thread?
Hahaha didn't you post this in the other thread?
May bagong partner na 'yung ka-boogie mo :)
Yah! But this one has really gone overboard, I think. :-\ Wait, sinong ka-boogie ko?
Haha si Bolt! Si SM naman yung ka-quote wars nya.
Hey buddy, you'll never really have a decent argument with that guy since you base your morality on the Bible alone, and he bases his morality on (probably) a lot of things. You won't ever reconcile your views because you have your faith and I'm assuming he doesn't.
I respect your stand and I just wish you don't spread or proliferate hate against homosexuals since your god is big on love isn't he?
So it's safe to say na you don't think all gays should be put on an island and bombed? Then you're all right my friend. I hope you really do respect them if they do not do "immoral" things based on your faith.
No. I'm just saying that awfully sounds familiar. I've heard and read all of that before. I just made the irrationality of the statement more obvious. That kind of statement is not unheard of. You can still read the same things now with regards to racial politics. And people who are informed about race topics will likely disagree with that edited statement as you have disagreed when i have edited your post. Interesting dichotomy.
Misinformation brings a lot of unnecessary ignorance. Just look at your statement vs the edited one. Both are prevalent defenses. A lot of people still think that breeding black people with white people is an abomination of nature, and will weaken the superior gene pool---a VILE degradation of their commonly held notion of purity, an upfront to their survival. What makes this irrational belief different from the belief that homosexuality will be the end of the evolution of our species? Genius, I say.
I can still read that same kind of irrational statements because people are misinformed. Did you even bother to find out that homosexuality gives more evolutionary advantage to the virile straights? And since homosexuals just keep to their own and don't breed the straight genome survives better in the gene pool? And so it has been for millions of years already of human existence.
Did millions of years of homosexuality hamper our species and other species evolution and survival? We are still here more populous than ever and still evolving.
And no. Sexual preference is not as so much acquired. There are more complicated mechanics involved such as genetic pre-disposition, brain structure, pre natal hormonal exposure, identity empathy and psycho-sexual need. To say that sexual preference is just acquired is putting it far too simply.
How about a proliferation of good lesbian p0rn?
Oi, we've only been around for 250,000 years. And that's the maximum estimate. But yeah, your point still stands.
The thing you have to understand is, religious people are very dogmatic. You can present all the evidence and the scientific studies made, in biology and psychology, and it would not matter. If they have a "because god says so" trump card, they win everytime. (At least in their heads).
It is simple, akala ko na gets mo na...what is immoral to God is immoral to me...you have a problem with that? Guilty as charged? LOL :-P
Now you tell us, how do you gauge what is "Immoral" and what is not?
Nababawan ako sa definition. Sounds too restrictive. One can form a sexual preference without the use of or referring to one's genitals.
The mechanics of sexual orientation transcend how people want to use their genitals.
It's not just...
"Saan ko gusto ipasok itong [sausage] ko?"
"Sino gusto ko makatalik"
Whether one has a penis, vagina or both or none at all, one can still form a sexual preference. If you are born with a penis it doesn't mean that your sexual preference revolves around your penis and how you want to use it. Some gays don't use their penises because they want to be seen and treated as women without going to the extent of being transexual and putting a vagina in there and cutting out the penis. Some lesbians don't even acknowledge they have a vagina and think that they are just trapped in a man's body, so much as they form their sexual preference without referring to their inborn sex organs. Some homosexuals are even disgusted by their sex organs because they don't agree with their gender identity. Young homosexuals form a sexual orientation without even knowing what sex is and how to use their sex organs. The only function they know of it is for peeing. Pansexual people even reject the conventions of how we think these organs should be used. Then there are bigender, trigender, genderfluid, and genderless people too---all of whom have formed their sexual orientation transcending their penises or vaginas.
I stand by it. What you have down there won't mean d1ck when it comes to forming your sexual preference.
For the sake of clarity. There are two biological sexes. The gender continuum is is more than just two. Although gender is also used as a reference for biological sex, it is no longer accurate to refer to gender as defined by the genitals one is born with. That's why from the 90s onwards, application forms ask for your sex and not gender as what is the usual convention in the 80s and 70s. We should arrive at a consensus of terms to use.
The first bold sentence is not really that accurate. Check your facts. 70s pa yang definition na yan. And a very religious one too. Makes Christians and Muslims think they can reform a homosexual child just because he hasn't indulged in an abominable act just yet. The second one, i agree with because you have used the word "or". Yes, romantic interest is considered but not limited to the apparent sexual act.
A man can identify as a woman as early as before puberty usually between ages 8-10. And they can already be defined homosexual just because they have identified with a different gender and in turn, has become interested with people of his own sex. A homosexual can be considered a homosexual regardless if he has had homosexual intercourse (i.e. homosexual virgins, closet homosexuals in controlling environments) or if he is unable to engage in sex (impotent homosexuals, child homosexuals). Homosexuality starts just by identifying to a different gender and having the attitudes that goes with it.
Your understanding of the subject is antiquated. Am I talking to a 50 year old man?
A I have said: Sexual preference is just second fiddle and a consequence to/of your gender identity. One has to identify with a gender first before he can form a sexual preference. Yet the act need not be consummated to make one homosexual.
My point still stands.
Engages in homosexuality, you mean as engaging in homosexual sex?
And what of prisoners who engage in man to man anal sex while still being straight? Prostitutes engaging in lesbian "shows" but are really straight? Transexual gay and lesbians engaging in heterosexual sex but are both gay and lesbian?
Again check updated information. It's far more complicated than that.
Refer to my first answer. You said people can choose their sex. Well, no. Not even close. And I never confused gender identity with gender role. Gender roles differ across societies and are conferred to you by your social group and are remotely of interest to the topic at hand.
Zoophilacs don't identify their genders in reference to the animals they fvck. So what is the relation of that to homosexuality?
Huh? What progress? What way do I want to progress? Are you still on topic?
I for one don't believe in charters and contracts being unconditional. Meron pa ba niyan? Yes I grant homosexuals the same rights as you and I because they are human beings as you and I. Zoophilacs can be straight, homosexual, or bi in their gender identity. So they'll be granted the same rights as straights, bis, homosexuals and transexuals.
Now, if you think homosexuality is on equal or related terms with zoophilia just because they both appear in nature, you might want to read more books.
Man, if I had the money, I would put you back to school plus gender sensitivity workshops.
We cant educate a fool. No matter what you do with it. Its ENOUGH!! :-D
Thank you answering my question.
Honestly, I find your answer rather "bland" and "vague".
It obviously borders within "safe zone"..safe from questions or scrutiny.
But If you care not to, or cannot "express" your "faith" clearly, then I won't force you .
I however, cannot give you a simple phrase to answer the question that you redirected to me. So I hope you have the patience to actually read "what I have to say", be it a bit off topic.
I was born into the catholic religion. I grew up in a religious family….How religious you may ask?
Well, I’ve been reading the bible ever since I was a kid. I grew up in a catholic school. Greatly influenced by a grandfather who happened to be a priest,…a priest who was The Pope’s secretary at the Vatican (80’s).
But religious as I was then , I saw the real world through my own eyes:
I saw, that the teachings of each religious leader, is centered towards the religious circle that the leader belongs to.
I saw that the interpretation of the supposed holy book and its contents, are tailored by the religious leaders favouring the “religious circle,” that again, they belong to.
These fuel the conflict, as to who has the “right book”, the “right interpretation”, and ultimately “who the righteous people are”.
Each religious circle claims that they are right, and that the others are wrong.
When I saw these, I detached myself from the religion that I was born into.
Why? Well, I certainly did not do that so I can join another religious circle; I did that so I can better understand, the other people around me, who are from other Religions.
I realized that Religion has shamefully become a Barrier instead of a Bridge.
Morality is dictated by the influence and teachings of the Religion that an individual belongs to.
Teachings that were drawn from the interpretations made by religion’s leaders on the supposed holy book.
Teachings, that instead of spreading unification, created discrimination.
With these however, I also realized that Faith and Religion are two separate things.
You can be a part of a religious group but not have faith; on the other hand, you can have faith in God without being a part of a religious group.
Honestly, I used to think, that though people from different religions refer to God with different names, they might actually be referring to the very same God.
But since you claim, that what is Immoral to your “god”, is immoral to you;
and you claim that, to your “god”, Homosexuals and Lesbians are” Immoral” ,
I now believe that you and I are not speaking of the same God .
Because the God I know is compassionate and understanding
The God I know teaches Love and extends Love, even to those who persecute him.
The God I know forgives and is not vengeful
The God I know does not discriminate.
So go on, spread hatred. Because I think that’s what your so called “god” preaches.
... i have been on 'killing time' mode for like 3 months already and i am still getting paid (i am not proud of it BTW), so i don't care.
Thank you answering my question.
Honestly, I find your answer rather "bland" and "vague".
It obviously borders within "safe zone"..safe from questions or scrutiny.
But If you care not to, or cannot "express" your "faith" clearly, then I won't force you .
I however, cannot give you a simple phrase to answer the question that you redirected to me. So I hope you have the patience to actually read "what I have to say", be it a bit off topic.
I was born into the catholic religion. I grew up in a religious family….How religious you may ask?
Well, I’ve been reading the bible ever since I was a kid. I grew up in a catholic school. Greatly influenced by a grandfather who happened to be a priest,…a priest who was The Pope’s secretary at the Vatican (80’s).
But religious as I was then , I saw the real world through my own eyes:
I saw, that the teachings of each religious leader, is centered towards the religious circle that the leader belongs to.
I saw that the interpretation of the supposed holy book and its contents, are tailored by the religious leaders favouring the “religious circle,” that again, they belong to.
These fuel the conflict, as to who has the “right book”, the “right interpretation”, and ultimately “who the righteous people are”.
Each religious circle claims that they are right, and that the others are wrong.
When I saw these, I detached myself from the religion that I was born into.
Why? Well, I certainly did not do that so I can join another religious circle; I did that so I can better understand, the other people around me, who are from other Religions.
I realized that Religion has shamefully become a Barrier instead of a Bridge.
Morality is dictated by the influence and teachings of the Religion that an individual belongs to.
Teachings that were drawn from the interpretations made by religion’s leaders on the supposed holy book.
Teachings, that instead of spreading unification, created discrimination.
With these however, I also realized that Faith and Religion are two separate things.
You can be a part of a religious group but not have faith; on the other hand, you can have faith in God without being a part of a religious group.
Honestly, I used to think, that though people from different religions refer to God with different names, they might actually be referring to the very same God.
But since you claim, that what is Immoral to your “god”, is immoral to you;
and you claim that, to your “god”, Homosexuals and Lesbians are” Immoral” ,
I now believe that you and I are not speaking of the same God .
Because the God I know is compassionate and understanding
The God I know teaches Love and extends Love, even to those who persecute him.
The God I know forgives and is not vengeful
The God I know does not discriminate.
So go on, spread hatred. Because I think that’s what your so called “god” preaches.
wow ha. let me just reply to this post in whole as I find your arguments boring and lacks logic and not worth the effort of formatting.
Logic 1:
When all b's are a's and all c's are a's, yet all b's are not c's. Still, both b's and c's are a's. If you have a hard time following that then you are what you have been all along.
You need to understand that the terms genderfluid, trigender etc... are terms similar to "gnarly" "jejemon" "jologs", these are not terms that are definitive of their actual meanings. Unless trigender-ship or genderfluidity and all other terms you think are real acquire definitive states, they remain to be colloquial terms in nature. If you say otherwise, prove it. Accepting these terms as valid and definitive terms is like being a high school kid who thinks magazine-coined terms like metal-core, emo and post-core et al BS are actual musical genre's. Until validity is proven, there is wisdom in waiting for facts before jumping the gun without proof. Not because you think it makes you look intelligent to be able to use terms and believe their actual meaning exists doesn't mean they're actually real.
Logic 2:
"It sounds like its true", doesn't mean it is.
Until it is definitively proven that people are pre-disposed to homosexuality, the only proven and definitive reason for it is "choice". Its not because I'm being traditional or hard-headed on my religion (and believe me, though I will not discuss it here, if you can definitively disprove my religion I'd gladly switch to yours but we saw how yours failed miserably on another thread), its because I'm being cautious. I cannot accept as fact anything that isn't fact. You should try that. At your age, I know you'd want to define yourself with beliefs you think are cool or will make you look cool. I'd rather get somewhere than look cool. I would rather spend my time looking at ways to making that choice easier for people or lessen the confusion on one's gender, than try looking at ways to prove pre-disposition and genetics as the source of it. As the former yields more results rather than the latter would. We've been trying to discover medical reasons for homosexuality for decades, with all these advances it should have been discovered by now. Until then, we are free to choose what to believe. But facts should be facts, what's not should not.
Mababaw lang yan sa nagpapakalalim. When you grow older, I hope you will see the wisdom in it.
My stand remains.
LBGT's are free to make their lifestyle choices. I likened it to a vice but never said it was a disease, I even elaborated as to liken it with GAS. But here's another analogy. Homosexuality is like Skydiving. Some people acquire an addiction to skydiving, its not bad. Despite the risks they still engage in it. Im not saying being gay is risky, but the challenges you subject yourself to upon making the choice might just be similar. However, I will advise my family and loved ones to stay away from it because of the risks. I will not spread hatred against homosexuals as they are human after all. This view is still consistent with my understanding of what the Bible says through my religion, how is that bigotry?
Lastly, for a twenty something with the wisdom of a 15-year old, I understand completely why you would view this wisdom as that of a 50-year old. I'm 38.
Oks ba?
The devil is in the details. If you don't like to look at the evidence present then don't. It's your brain. It's your life. If you think the words I use are useless jargon instead of terms actually used in the social sciences, it's your choice to discard the information. If the pieces of evidence don't agree to your views, you are welcome to ignore them. Why the caution? Fear? We know that no matter what the real world evidence reveals, your God's words will always be law. He says its abnormal. Caution! The evidence might be wrong.Evidence of what? C'mon. The only definitively proven "cause" of homosexuality is choice. Yes, those terms are used in social sciences. Do you think that jejemon and jologs or gnarly or cool haven't been used in social sciences?
I once thought of homosexuality as communicable, or a matter of choice or controllable like many of you here. I once though of it as binary too. But the evidence suggests otherwise. I go with the evidence. And I keep learning...keep on understanding.
38 huh? You probably grew up with Roderick Paulate in your television---and the other slapstick gays prevalent in the 80s. With parents who would say "Wag kang lalambot lambot junjun!". With classmates, peers or even family members who were effeminate. You probably were a part of a group who probably laughed at them and called them pucha ang bakl@ naman neto". Then you had your patriarchs tell you about what it takes to be a real man. Yet still you saw the gay people and couldn't make sense of it, asked how they parents must have failed, you probably even heard your parents exclaim "oi yung anak ni ganyan bakl@ daw!". Then you got re-acquainted with your religion that made you think about it in a specific way, that made you feel normal against them. If you are middle class and grew up at that time i could reference from your age, I understand why you still hold on to those beliefs like alot of people here. It's so deeply ingrained. It would probably be an upfront to your masculinity or to your upbringing to accept that they are as normal as you are. I understand completely, as well.
Until you have found your 100% facts, if there is such a thing---I'm glad you have a bible to defer to.
The only definitively proven "cause" of homosexuality is choice.
Oh well. We have completed a circle. Good luck with evidence.
You said that homosexuality is the end of the evolution of the species. That is not possible. If the first humans started to have sex with the same gender then no, they wouldn't have lasted 30 years. But that's all conjuncture yes? And that scenario is impossible too. There is no use asking those questions because they won't happen.I merely brought up a scenario to illustrate how homosexuality contradicts nature's design for all species to propagate & in turn, evolve. It doesn't matter if the likelihood of it happening is next to impossible since it's just an example, & you didn't give a straight answer to this until I prodded you to.
Sorry to break it to you. Normal is a subjective and arbitrary word differing across societies. But in medical, scientific terms, yes homosexuality is considered normal.Whoah! I admire your advocacy, but this is obviously pushing it. You seem like a smart dude, so I hope that you realize the absurdity of what you said. Do you have any idea of the established standards in medicine, psychology, etc. which are widely considered as "normal" you threw out the window with this statement of yours? I guess you would consider normal blood platelet count, human temperature, eyesight, etc. as subjective. Hell, I think you would even consider coprophagia & necrophilia as "normal" so long as it fits your agenda.
Seems like you are too lazy to read a little bit more on what i wrote as well.Where's your citation then? This concept of a more superior gay seed is just too preposterous for me to spend time Googling it.
I said that it is an interplay of genetic, pre natal exposure, mental and environmental factors. not just the outside environment.Most of the time it's environmental, or else homosexuality will not be treatable. Yes, there are medical establishments which treat homosexuality (gasp!).
In a nutshell, gender identity (will i identify as a man or a woman, or both) and sexual orientation (will i be bi, gay, lesbian straight or none at all?) is not a choice. people dont make a conscious choice (should i go with A or B, C or D, just two or all of them?) with regards to their sexual orientation and that is backed by decades of research. Your sexual orientation determines your sexual preference and will often overlap. So, if you have no control over your sexual orientation, what makes you think you are in control about your sexual preference?Tell you what, why don't we just abolish the terms "male" & "female" & replace it with the term "sexual beings" since we all seem to be homosexuals, bisexuals & trisexuals at heart?
Can you choose to be gay for the next 5 years and be straight the next three? Can you choose to learn to be gay next week?
The only way sexual preference will have some degree of choice is when you are bisexual or trisexual or genderfluid and you choose if you will be going out with a woman tonight and have a man the next week. But then again, that is also influenced by mental processes, environment and hormonal changes. So still not a complete autonomous choice.
I merely brought up a scenario to illustrate how homosexuality contradicts nature's design for all species to propagate & in turn, evolve. It doesn't matter if the likelihood of it happening is next to impossible since it's just an example, & you didn't give a straight answer to this until I prodded you to.
Whoah! I admire your advocacy, but this is obviously pushing it. You seem like a smart dude, so I hope that you realize the absurdity of what you said. Do you have any idea of the established standards in medicine, psychology, etc. which are widely considered as "normal" you threw out the window with this statement of yours? I guess you would consider normal blood platelet count, human temperature, eyesight, etc. as subjective. Hell, I think you would even consider coprophagia & necrophilia as "normal" so long as it fits your agenda.
Where's your citation then? This concept of a more superior gay seed is just too preposterous for me to spend time Googling it.
Most of the time it's environmental, or else homosexuality will not be treatable. Yes, there are medical establishments which treat homosexuality (gasp!).
Tell you what, why don't we just abolish the terms "male" & "female" & replace it with the term "sexual beings" since we all seem to be homosexuals, bisexuals & trisexuals at heart?
I'm beginning to see holes in your arguments, Bolt. Pretty soon everything will collapse on itself like a house of cards unless you stop [strawberry] around & really put your game face on. I'm just getting warmed up.
I rely on facts, takes out the guess work. You should try it.
Where's the prudence? Where's the caution?
Savic's team has yet to confirm whether the differences in brain shape are responsible for sexual orientation, or are a consequence of it. To find out, they have begun another study to investigate brain symmetry in newborn babies, to see if it can be used to predict their future sexual orientation.
Here. Or did you just read the first paragraph that obviously jumped to conclusions?
Fact is fact when fact is fact. Otherwise... well, you know the drill.
The only definitively proven "cause" of homosexuality is choice.
Yeah, that study jumped the gun to soon. Another thing the study failed to cover is the percentage of straight males with brains the same shape as heterosexual females vs. gay males with the same. I highly doubt that ALL males with the same brain physiology as heterosexual females are ALL gay. I think that would have given us a better picture. I agree with one of the comments, we need an unbiased study of a large group individuals from childhood up until their adulthood to have a more conclusive result.QuoteSavic's team has yet to confirm whether the differences in brain shape are responsible for sexual orientation, or are a consequence of it. To find out, they have begun another study to investigate brain symmetry in newborn babies, to see if it can be used to predict their future sexual orientation.Here. Or did you just read the first paragraph that obviously jumped to conclusions?
Fact is fact when fact is fact. Otherwise... well, you know the drill.
I havent read the file since for whatever reason it's not opening in my browser, but somehow I doubt if this study is unbiased towards gays considering na galing ito sa isa sa mga liberal na states sa US.
The other link provides a similar breakthrough but based in San Fransisco that supports the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice.
Related documentation, studies, and literature in the third link I provided Santo Muerte.
As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the “gay agenda.” At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are “equal.” If it feels good, do it.
Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.Does the line in bold letters look familiar? Who has so far been using that kind of reasoning in defending homosexuality in this thread?
Oo nga I think we both are just wasting time, but I have a lot of time to waste for him if he wants to... i have been on 'killing time' mode for like 3 months already and i am still getting paid (i am not proud of it BTW), so i don't care.
hahaha...just to be clear, I dont want anybody misinterpreting the above words of mine...ang ibig kung sabihin ay nagpapatay oras lang ako dito sa forum habang nagtatrabaho kasi maluwag talaga kami ngayon, so OK lang sa akin magsayang ng oras...hehehe
Ayos naman ang balitaktakan dito basta respeto lang sa isa't isa.
OK nice story, pero ang layo ng sagot mo sa sarili mong tanong na "how do you gauge what is "Immoral" and what is not?"
Nagtataka din ako sayo kung bakit vague pa rin sayo yung sagot ko samantalang napaka 'in your face' na nga nun.
So you hate religion because you 'realized that Religion has shamefully become a Barrier instead of a Bridge' but then you claim you have your own 'god', parang contradicting yata. So kung meron kang 'god', ano talaga ang religion mo?
Those being said, I am not bound by the context of “Morality as per you definition of it” .
[/b]
Which makes me ask the question, “How do you know what is immoral to God?”
… Or would you rather cower in your “safe zone”?
If you cannot comprehend with the existence of God in the absence of Religion
then I tell you now, you are in big trouble.
Because with the way you put it, it seems that you can only comprehend with the existence of God because of religion.
And again, good luck with your evidence.
Again the logic escapes you, no?
Sexual activity between persons of the same sex is one of the definitions of homosexuality.
As an example, your 2 straight friends in prison who chose to engage in sexual activity, chose to engage in homosexuality. Even if they are still romantically and sexually attracted to the opposite sex, they still chose to engage in homosexuality. Hindi mababaw yan, nagpapakalalim ka lang kaya hindi mo makuha.
Good luck with the doctrines you regard as fact.
Although, I agree with homosexuality being physiological as many of these doctrines you believe in imply. Like the effects of nicotine on a smoker or the rush of adrenaline in a skydiver and pheromones to mammals in heat. I still wont jump to conclusions until facts are proven to be facts.
So how you define it nga?
I thought you have read the Bible since your childhood? andun lang naman yung sagot sa tanong mo e.
so who is your 'god'?
OK I guess I am in 'big trouble' now (my legs are trembling while im in my safe zone :lol:)
Nakakabitin pag hindi nasagot ng buo yung tanong di ba?It is more like you gave yourself a taste of your own medicine nga e...mahirap talaga mahulog sa sarili mong trap ano? kahit anong haba ng reply mo huli pa rin yung kahambugan mo at lahat ng paratang mo sa kapwa mo na nanahimik bumabalik pa rin sayo...Re-directing? tingnan mo nga yung mga post, ikaw nga itong nagliligaw ng usapan e...tsk tsk tsk.
I opted to give you a taste of your own medicine dahil hindi ka makasagot ng derecho at solido.
You are so fond of redirecting the questions that you are being asked, back to the one who asked you.
Questions that you are supposed to answer...pero hindi mo masagot.
Anyways, let me oblige
My definition of Morality is simple: TO RESPECT AND VALUE WHAT GOD HAS GIVEN
^^^^ Here's another clear example of you dodging the question instead of answering it.
I simply asked you, “How do you know what is immoral to God?”
It is YOU that I was asking, therefore it is your thought on the subject matter that was required…
But instead of giving me YOUR OWN solid answer, you’re telling me to refer to the bible.
Hindi ka talaga makasagot ng derecho.
You either give blurred answers, or point to “this or that”, or redirect the question back to the one who asked you.
The pattern is obvious.
The God I know is compassionate and understanding
The God I know teaches Love and extends Love, even to those who persecute him.
The God I know forgives and is not vengeful
The God I know does not discriminate.
DEFINITELY NOT THE HATEFUL gOD THAT YOU WORSHIP.
You Religious people are so FULL OF [gooey brown stuff].
I'LL BE SEEING YOU IN HELL.
people identifying as homosexuals is normal. and science doesn't discount that. look it up.Ah, "science". You want science? I'll give you your science.
Similarly, by no longer listing it (homosexuality) as a psychiatric disorder we are not saying that it is "normal" or as valuable as heterosexuality.Oops! There goes your "gays are normal" assertion right out the window, and that's coming from the psychiatrists themselves.
Over the past two years, gay‐lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate.We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’”
It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain
Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins.source: http://www.narth.com/docs/senatecommittee.html (http://www.narth.com/docs/senatecommittee.html)
...environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gaysource: N. Mitchell, “Genetics, sexuality linked, study says,” Standard Examiner, April 30, 1995
Ah, "science". You want science? I'll give you your science.
I'm sure you're already aware of how the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Not entirely true. They added a category called "Sexual Orientation Disturbance" which distinguishes it from homosexuality as they reclassified the latter as just a sexual behavior. Nakakatawa kasi ayon sa APA kung alcoholic ka, may sayad ka sa ulo, pero kung lalaki ka at gusto mo makipagbuttsex sa kapwa mo lalaki, wala kang diperensya. This was done after constant pressure, intimidation & harassment by gay & lesbian groups, but we'll get to that later.
Here's the zinger: Even though the APA removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders, here's what they emphasized:
Oops! There goes your "gays are normal" assertion right out the window, and that's coming from the psychiatrists themselves.
You can download the APA 's DSM II revision here: http://www.torahdec.org/Downloads/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf (http://www.torahdec.org/Downloads/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf)
Ok, balik tayo doon sa panghaharass ng mga gays sa APA kaya nila dineclassify ang homosexuality bilang sira sa utak. From Chapter 7 of the book "The Born Gay Hoax":
This is the same Dr. Frank Kameny that wanted to decriminalize sodomy: http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/dc/dctestimony01.htm (http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/dc/dctestimony01.htm)
I would suggest that you read the book. It's very enlightening & exposes the real agenda of gay groups. You can download it here http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf)
Is homosexuality a mental
disorder?
No, lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are
not disorders. Research has found no inherent
association between any of these sexual orientations
and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior
and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of
human sexuality. Both have been documented
in many different cultures and historical eras.
Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed,
several decades of research and clinical experience
have led all mainstream medical and mental
health organizations in this country to conclude
that these orientations represent normal forms
of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual
relationships are normal forms of human bonding
Next up, the "Born Gay" theory. Simon LeVay a neurobiologist & a self-professed gay man, said this after conducting an inconclusive hypothalamus study:
source: http://discovermagazine.com/1994/mar/sexandthebrain346#.UYCC77VT6So (http://discovermagazine.com/1994/mar/sexandthebrain346#.UYCC77VT6So)
Or how about Richard Pillard's Twin study, who btw is also a gay man:
source: http://www.narth.com/docs/senatecommittee.html (http://www.narth.com/docs/senatecommittee.html)
Or how about the X Chromosome study from another gay man, Dean Hamer:
source: N. Mitchell, “Genetics, sexuality linked, study says,” Standard Examiner, April 30, 1995
Had enough science? Nope, I'm not yet done with the science. I'm bringing the hammer of science down, biatch.
From Ivanka Savic, the lead researcher from Sweden for a 2005 pheromone study which gay activists claimed were more evidence of a biological basis to homosexuality. She says her study "had nothing to do with proving homosexuality to be biological"
source: http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=146 (http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=146)
Oops! There goes your "born gay" argument running out the door.
LeVay's research had provided a tantalizing clue that in the realm of sexual attraction and behavior, biology--at least to some extent--might be destiny.
I am saying that gay men have a woman's INAH3--they've got a woman's brain in that particular part. In a brain region regulating sexual attraction, it would make sense that what you see in gay men is like what you see in heterosexual women.
Alright so we've established a couple of things:
1. Homosexuality is still not considered "normal".
2. There is no such thing as being born gay.
I must admit, this debate [gooey brown stuff] is fun!
And it is obvious the science eludes you.wrong again, that is your assumption and we all know how bad your ability to assess things is. im just not easily convinced by your googling. not all that glitters is gold.
Agree. But it doesn't mean that if one engages in same sex intercourse they are already homosexual. They have to identify as homosexuals first.ah see, still. homosexual sex is homosexual. despite their chosen lifestyles after, around or hidden from that particular act, they still engaged in homosexual sex. homosexual sex is homosexual.
But they still aren't gay. There lies the difference. Prison sex can be punishment or ritual rape like what happens in the military. Human sexual behavior is far more complicated. Them engaging in anal sex with each other didn't cause them to be gay. They are still straight.rape is not sex (as in intercourse)... Im wondering how you got those 2 confused here. unless you have other terms you think are cool that would consider rape lawful as intercourse.
Similarly, two bisexuals or transexuals having hetero sex don't cause them to be straight. They are still bi or trans.
Good luck with the antiquated beliefs you regard as true.right. antiques, the real ones, always come out valuable as opposed to your modern disposables. What you presented so far, just have semblance of fact or just partly true. But we've already established that that's how your religion works: partly true is completely true just as long as it makes you look cool.
What I presented so far are already facts. Denying them won't make it otherwise. I still don't see any research or science that gets behind your view that homosexuality is a choice. Until then, I'd still go with the evidence.
ah see, still. homosexual sex is homosexual. despite their chosen lifestyles after, around or hidden from that particular act, they still engaged in homosexual sex. homosexual sex is homosexual.
rape is not sex (as in intercourse)... Im wondering how you got those 2 confused here. unless you have other terms you think are cool that would consider rape lawful as intercourse.right.
wrong again, that is your assumption and we all know how bad your ability to assess things is. im just not easily convinced by your googling. not all that glitters is gold.
antiques, the real ones, always come out valuable as opposed to your modern disposables. What you presented so far, just have semblance of fact or just partly true. But we've already established that that's how your religion works: partly true is completely true just as long as it makes you look cool.
I'm just waiting to see where your beliefs will take you. May the odds be forever in your favor.
The only definitively proven "cause" of homosexuality is choice.
Dude, yung proposal for revision ang "retired". Retired na kasi na-implement na nila yung revision at naidagdag na yung "Sexual Orientation Disturbance" na category. Unless may mas updated ka na version ng DSM-II, the burden of proof na patunayan na "normal" ang homosexuality according to the consensus of psychiatrists ay hindi na sa akin. You can post a million links to half-baked research/studies slanted towards gays funded by gay groups but that doesn't change what the APA says.
Rape is sex done without consent. It's still sex.I stand corrected. It was me who got confused on that.
Nevertheless, the logic still escapes you, huh? Feels like talking to a 5th grader.
What I said:
The only definitively proven "cause" of homosexuality is choice.
What you thought it meant:
The only definitively proven "cause" of becoming/being homosexual is choice.
Homosexuality is the state of being homosexual. There is still no evidence to support your claim.
If the cause of homosexuality is choice, what is the cause of heterosexuality? Similarly, if homosexuality is indeed a choice,, how can a homosexual choose to "un-homosexualize" himself?
This guy said he can
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/03/20/12/can-one-overcome-homosexuality-ex-comedian-says-yes
so if it's a choice, does that mean it's always possible you guys may one day choose to be gay? tas siguro pag hindi hiyang eh balik na lang sa pagiging straight ulit.
also it's curious how i hear more stories about gays willfully choosing to be straight but in the end wala talaga, hindi kinaya tuloy pa rin sa pagiging gay. there are even stories of gays so desperate and pressured to be straight but can't that they resort to suicide instead. makes me wonder, if homosexuality is a choice why does choosing to be heterosexual seem a lot harder?
This guy said he can
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/03/20/12/can-one-overcome-homosexuality-ex-comedian-says-yes
How? Does changing the outward behavior reverse his being homosexual? Or is he just back to the closet? Or was he just bi in the beginning? As he said kabaklaan niya dati 11, ngayon 1 na lang. Implies just a toning down.
Then there's the phrase, everyone turns straight when born again, until they see a d1ck again.
all i know is that these "gender reparative therapy" is harmful to the psyche and well being of its "patients". the statistics of non-success is staggering. they are just secretly gay and are just acting straight by having hetero sex and a family to please their religious group or family or to escape persecution or to save their careers.
engaging in hetero sex doesn't un-gay someone.
Perhaps it is like some tormenting psychological disorder that do not have a cure...but can be controlled by whatever therapy may apply.
Homosexuality is the state of being homosexual. There is still no evidence to support your claim.
If the cause of homosexuality is choice, what is the cause of heterosexuality? Similarly, if homosexuality is indeed a choice,, how can a homosexual choose to "un-homosexualize" himself?
> Homosexual sex is homosexuality
>> As you have argued quite clearly in several posts, one can engage in homosexual sex (or heterosexual sex) regardless of gender identity. As intercourse does not determine gender identity.
> If a heterosexual male, chooses to engage in homosexuality for whatever reason, then he has chosen homosexuality. Even if it doesn't make him homosexual (if it that thought makes you more comfortable, not saying that I agree though), still he has chosen homosexuality, because homosexual sex is homosexuality. Logic trumps pretensions.
Using your arguments again, if a male realizes he has a strong tendency to become homosexual, but does not want to act on it (or let it become) for whatever reason. Can't he not make a choice to practice heterosexuality? Or is it prohibited in your religion?
technology and know-how aside, if certain factors do cause homosexuality then there is the possibility of procedures that could "reverse" this in the same way people undergo hormone injections and gender re-assignment.
And if these certain factors do cause homosexuality, then homosexuality (or at least the factors or conditions that cause it) can be induced and/or prevented, making choice possible. But what are these factors? Right now its all just opinion as no one has determined exactly what these are.
As to reasons for becoming homosexual such as the claims of predisposition or genetics or the doctrines you've been preaching. Sure, evidence suggests etc. etc. But facts are facts when facts are facts. Statements like "Could be because of" or "highly-likely to have come from" is different from "It is so"
And please, people can choose to practice homosexuality or not regardless if how they identify themselves, if we go by your arguments. Therefore homosexuality can be chosen, no need for doctrines, just good old common sense. Unless... you are saying that homosexuality is exclusive to homosexuals?
True.
Gender identity precedes and determines sexual orientation. So if he is heterosexual he can't choose to be homosexual just by engaging in same sex intercourse. What happened simply is he just had same sex intercourse, sodomy, or has been part of a threesome or an orgy that could involve same sex intercourse. A woman engaged on a threesome with a male and another woman can't make her homosexual.
homosexual sex is homosexuality is just narrowly putting it.
He can practice hetero sex. He can have a wife and children. But he is still homosexual or inherently bisexual depending on his gender identity and sexual orientation. But inhibiting himself from practice such that he just modifies his outside behavior is again, superficial.
A rhetorical question that deserves a rhetorical response.
Knowing that homosexuality is caused by biological, psychological, mental and environmental factors, how do you intend to change to your favor the pre-natal causes?
How can you reverse all known biological pre-natal causes that are attributed to homosexuality like birth order, uterine environment, brain size and genetic pre disposition?
Suppose that we have the technology to influence the known pre-natal conditions that leads to homosexuality before childbirth, isn't it an etchical question ala-minority report? Trying to prevent what hasn't happened yet and without the consent of the unborn child? Then it would be not a true choice for that unborn child who hasn't yet "turned" gay. It will still not be his choice. Regardless if there is a technological intervention or not, eitherway, it would be not his choice to be straight nor not his choice to be homosexual. The choice is still not in own his hands.
Seems we have reached a predestination paradox.
Again you can have same sex, anal sex with another man, oral sex with another man but we know already know that gender identity is boss. If he had anal man to man sex yet identifies as straight, he is straight. They can practice the sexual acts, but they don't become homosexuals nor the sex causes them to be.
Therefore, homosexuality can be chosen.
Becoming homosexual though, has yet to be definitively proven cannot be chosen.
Once your prophets have identified the exact biological, psychological, mental and environmental factors then research on change and altering procedures can follow. Until then, my guess is as good as your faith.
Homosexuality has been proven to be not a choice because there are pre natal factors at play.Homosexuality is assumed by pseudo-science worshipers to have been proven to be not a choice because there are pre-natal factors at play.
The sexual acts or the indulgence of, can be chosen, inhibited or supressed.
Homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality can't.
How? Does changing the outward behavior reverse his being homosexual? Or is he just back to the closet? Or was he just bi in the beginning? As he said kabaklaan niya dati 11, ngayon 1 na lang. Implies just a toning down.Nope, gays can be fixed. Just ask the the APA's former president (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/11640-former-apa-president-says-homosexuals-can-changel). This is the the same guy who spearheaded declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder. He also says that the APA is now controlled by the gay rights movement (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-president-of-apa-says-organization-controlled-by-gay-rights-movement/).
Then there's the phrase, everyone turns straight when born again, until they see a d1ck again.
all i know is that these "gender reparative therapy" is harmful to the psyche and well being of its "patients". the statistics of non-success is staggering. they are just secretly gay and are just acting straight by having hetero sex and a family to please their religious group or family or to escape persecution or to save their careers.
engaging in hetero sex doesn't un-gay someone.
Homosexuality is assumed by pseudo-science worshipers to have been proven to be not a choice because there are pre-natal factors at play.
So you're saying homosexual sex is not homosexuality?
Nope, gays can be fixed. Just ask the the APA's former president (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/11640-former-apa-president-says-homosexuals-can-changel). This is the the same guy who spearheaded declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder. He also says that the APA is now controlled by the gay rights movement (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-president-of-apa-says-organization-controlled-by-gay-rights-movement/).
Hindi na ako nagtataka, kasi recently dineclassify na rin ng APA ang pagiging Transgender (http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=apa+declassified+transgender&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDsQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Flgbt%2F2012%2F12%2F03%2F1271431%2Fapa-revises-manual-being-transgender-is-no-longer-a-mental-disorder%2F&ei=xPWBUaeSCsyuiQeBsYHoCw&usg=AFQjCNEiXgEIwc62408JgHWrM0CmJ9kuzw&bvm=bv.45921128,d.aGc). Ngayon pa lang ay sinisimulan na rin ng APA idestigmatize ang Pedophilia (http://bighealthreport.com/1318/report-apa-wants-to-destigmatize-pedophilia/), which is apparently the first step to declassify it as a mental disorder as well. Way to go, assholes. Pag dumating ang araw na hindi na considered mental disorder ang Pedophilia at nagahasa ang isa sa mga anak ninyo, huwag kayong magagalit.
the scientific evidence still supports Homosexuality is normal. Ang dami scientific disciplines diyan, biology, social sciences, neuroscience, anthropology, etc etc
just curious, could you refer literature/studies from these fields that support your views? thanks.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/226963.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology
Just a tiny speck of the pieces of evidence that is already known. More would come if you try to read books like Kinsey Reports and journals from the World Health Organization or reports from international neuroscientists.
If you are too lazy to be bothered to google, how can you expect to arrive at a mere dust of trusted information like this?
http://libertyeducationforum.org/docs/whitepapers/is_it_a_choice_white_paper.pdf
1. Here we go with the "normal" assertion again. Just for now, let's not consider these so called scientific "organizations" whose research has succumbed to political correctness and/or pressure from gay groups. Just by using good ol' fashioned common sense, how can something "normal" occur in just a small percentage of the population?
1. I still don't get why you keep on quoting APA material when you know you don't trust them. Ang dami naman scientific organizations diyan that share the scientific consensus that homosexuality is normal and not a disease. Kahit di natin isama ang APA sa mga reference natin, the scientific evidence still supports Homosexuality is normal. Ang dami scientific disciplines diyan, biology, social sciences, neuroscience, anthropology, etc etc
Kung binasa mo yung link mo na sinasabi ng ex president ng APA na homosexuals can change. Lagi niya sinasabi "homosexual lifestyle". Yun ang binabago niya. Outside behavior lang. Wala siyang sinabi na puwede maging straight ang isang homosexual.
Fix gays? Are they broken in the first place? Di na kita masasagot diyan. You have to ask a gay or a lesbian. Tanong mo if they feel broken or malfunctioned. Tanong mo if they can't function as healthy members of society. Yun naman ang psychiatric standard kung dysfunctional ang isang tao.
Iba din pananaw ko sa gay marriage. If the society is not ready, kahit nainitindihan na ng buong mundo ang homosexuality pero hindi naman handa yung society natin tanggapin yun, hindi pa tayo puwede mag gay mariage sa tingin ko. we will be risking the homosexuals to more abuse and hate kahit na may karapatan pa sila kasi nga yung madlang tao, di pa naiinitindihan yunghomosexuality. Di mo naman puwede biglain mga bagay na ganyan lalo na kung maselan yung kultura katulad ng sa atin.
although alot would agree na biglain nalang para santong paspasan ang pagbabago.
Kung binasa mo yung link mo na sinasabi ng ex president ng APA na homosexuals can change. Lagi niya sinasabi "homosexual lifestyle". Yun ang binabago niya. Outside behavior lang. Wala siyang sinabi na puwede maging straight ang isang homosexual.Hindi ba if you're no longer living the homosexual lifestyle, ibig sabihin nun hindi ka na bading? You complicate even the simplest of statements. Ayaw mo kay Dr. Nicholas Cummings? How about Dr. Robert Spitzer? He's another guy involved with declassifying homosexuality from the DSM & he also says that homosexuality can be cured (http://www.dijg.de/english/homosexuality-reality-of-change/). Look up PFOX. The only people who balk at the notion of homosexuals being cured are the LGBT groups themselves (uh, including you na rin).
I know, kaya nga sinabi ko rin na "it's a first step to declassify it as a mental disorder" e. Kapag hindi na considered na diperensya sa utak ang pedophilia, mas magiging acceptable sa society, & if it's more acceptable to society there's a possibility na it would either abolish laws previously against pedophiles or enact new ones favorable to them.
2. You have to distinguish between medical and scientific matters and legal matters. Di naman ibig sabihin destigmatized ang pedophilia or homosexuality puwede na maging legal ang pedophilia or gay marriage. So if you are asking for laws for pedophilia or sodomy just because they are already scientifically understood, yung society pa rin mag dedecide niyan. Rape has rape laws. Marrying age have marrying age laws. Depende kung ano ang society. Sa ibang kultura di problema ang pedophilia, pero kadiri maging [pichapie]. It's a cultural question already. I'm after the scientific inquiry about sexual orientation.
oh these, hindi pa naman definitive yung results ng studies nila (only few individuals were studied) kahit yung conclusions nila hindi pa rin sigurado kasi they still have to conduct more studies.
1. Here we go with the "normal" assertion again. Just for now, let's not consider these so called scientific "organizations" whose research has succumbed to political correctness and/or pressure from gay groups. Just by using good ol' fashioned common sense, how can something "normal" occur in just a small percentage of the population?
Hindi ba if you're no longer living the homosexual lifestyle, ibig sabihin nun hindi ka na bading? You complicate even the simplest of statements.
Ayaw mo kay Dr. Nicholas Cummings? How about Dr. Robert Spitzer? He's another guy involved with declassifying homosexuality from the DSM & he also says that homosexuality can be cured (http://www.dijg.de/english/homosexuality-reality-of-change/). Look up PFOX. The only people who balk at the notion of homosexuals being cured are the LGBT groups themselves (uh, including you na rin).
I know, kaya nga sinabi ko rin na "it's a first step to declassify it as a mental disorder" e. Kapag hindi na considered na diperensya sa utak ang pedophilia, mas magiging acceptable sa society, & if it's more acceptable to society there's a possibility na it would either abolish laws previously against pedophiles or enact new ones favorable to them.
Tanong ko lang & hopefully magiging honest ang sagot mo: Are you gay?
nabasa mo na LAHAT? ako nga dalawang araw ko binasa yan e.
yes I did read it, and I agree with this comment on one of those articles
"posted by jimhale on 11 Jul 2011 at 10:04 am
The science along this vein of inquiry does not prove much.
Even if similarities in brain function/appearance/measurements exist between gay men and straight women or gay women and straight men, the finding of such similarities does not speak to their origin.
Which came first the similarities or the behavior?
Only an unbiased study of a large number of children studied from birth to adulthood could actually establish the truth of this researcher's conclusions."
Ummm, left handedness? It's a normal variation but appears low in population. In fact, mas marami marginally ang mga LGBT kesa mga taong left handed.Great analogy! There's only one problem: Being left-handed is not behavioral. Besides, handedness can be genetic/hereditary. Nice try though.
Baka gusto mo sabihin hindi COMMON. Kesa hindi NORMAL. Hindi COMMON kasi maliit population nila. Pero normal lang sa mga tao may ganon.
Yung mga closet gays ba na may pamilya na, straight sila? Hindi. Outside behavior lang minodify mo. [pichapie] pa rin sila pero secret lang.And how would you know na sikretong bading pa rin sila? Are you saying you know better than them? Ex-gays have even protested the APA's claim that homosexuality is irreversible. Dr. Spitzer says that it's "ridiculous" for the APA to claim that treating homosexuality is unethical, because like it or not, there are still gays who feel uncomfortable with being gay so they go & seek help.
Ganun din e. Lifestyle lang iniiba nila. Wala naman sila sinabi na completely straight na or "cured" yung mga patients nila.
I don't know about you but the subject of politics bores me.Well, this topic is socio-political in nature, so whether you like it or not you're already in a political debate.
Great analogy! There's only one problem: Being left-handed is not behavioral. Besides, handedness can be genetic/hereditary. Nice try though.
And how would you know na sikretong bading pa rin sila? Are you saying you know better than them? Ex-gays have even protested the APA's claim that homosexuality is irreversible. Dr. Spitzer says that it's "ridiculous" for the APA to claim that treating homosexuality is unethical, because like it or not, there are still gays who feel uncomfortable with being gay so they go & seek help.
Well, this topic is socio-political in nature, so whether you like it or not you're already in a political debate.
Eto tinanong mo ano trait ng tao na normal pero maliit populasyon. e di yan handedness. same as homosexuality handedness is influenced early in the womb and also has behavioral implications. normal siya pero hindi common.Seriously? Kinukumpara mo ang pagiging kaliwete sa pagiging bakla? Where's the behavioral connection? Where's the genetic factor? Huwag mo sabihing pati left-handedness pagdedebatihan pa natin. You could compare syphillis to albinism as long as it suits your agenda, but it will make you look retarded in the process.
Kung susundan ko logic ng tanong mo na "how can something "normal" occur in just a small percentage of the population?" Ibig sabihin abnormal ang pagiging left handed. Kasi 10% lang sila. hindi diba?
not everything that is uncommon is not normal. hindi lang siya common. sablay na analogy na dahil konti lang ang population hindi na normal. normal variations can appear even in a 1% population.
because we already know that a gay man having sex with straights don't make them straight as much as a straight woman having sex with a lesbian won't make her lesbian. modified outward behavior doesn't influence sexual orientation.And how would you know, as in, how would you really, really know that homosexuals can't be treated? Because the APA says so? Because the LGBT groups say so? Do you secretly have a degree in psychiatry that we don't know about? Mga psychiatrists na ang nagsasabi na homosexuals can be treated & many are now living happy, heterosexual lives. Not believing in something makes you a skeptic, but still refusing to believe in it even with evidence pointing to the possibility is just plain stubborness. Para kang bata na pag natatalo na sa usapan ay magtatakip ng dalawang tenga tapos magsasalita ng "BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH". Besides, if you're a straight male without any financial problems why in the [strawberry] would you have sex with another man?
you can change the lifestyle in order for them to conform to the pressures of their religious group, society or families. but they are still gay. they can't change the host of physiological factors that made them naturally so, just like us straight people. these therapists can't reverse the factors that pre disposed them from their mother's womb. all your links that say they can change them, none of them say that they can be straight. all of them just say they are changing the homosexual lifestyle.
b@kla pa rin yan. at walang masama doon.
Seriously? Kinukumpara mo ang pagiging kaliwete sa pagiging bakla? Where's the behavioral connection? Where's the genetic factor? Huwag mo sabihing pati left-handedness pagdedebatihan pa natin. You could compare syphillis to albinism as long as it suits your agenda, but it will make you look retarded in the process.
1. Here we go with the "normal" assertion again. Just for now, let's not consider these so called scientific "organizations" whose research has succumbed to political correctness and/or pressure from gay groups. Just by using good ol' fashioned common sense, how can something "normal" occur in just a small percentage of the population?
Seriously? Kinukumpara mo ang pagiging kaliwete sa pagiging bakla? Where's the behavioral connection? Where's the genetic factor? Huwag mo sabihing pati left-handedness pagdedebatihan pa natin. You could compare syphillis to albinism as long as it suits your agenda, but it will make you look retarded in the process.
And how would you know, as in, how would you really, really know that homosexuals can't be treated? Because the APA says so? Because the LGBT groups say so? Do you secretly have a degree in psychiatry that we don't know about? Mga psychiatrists na ang nagsasabi na homosexuals can be treated & many are now living happy, heterosexual lives. Not believing in something makes you a skeptic, but still refusing to believe in it even with evidence pointing to the possibility is just plain stubborness. Para kang bata na pag natatalo na sa usapan ay magtatakip ng dalawang tenga tapos magsasalita ng "BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH".
Besides, if you're a straight male without any financial problems why in the [strawberry] would you have sex with another man?
Of course gay groups will say that homosexuality cannot be treated & attempting to do so will be harmful, because if there's one thing that they hate more than anything else, it's people who are "traitors" to their cause.
Shit I'm cranky today. It's probably because I have not slept yet, or because I found out that Jeff Hanneman died. Itutulog ko muna ito.
Besides, if you're a straight male without any financial problems why in the [strawberry] would you have sex with another man?
The wife asked for a threesome that didn't involve another female. lol
That is just one example.
A threesome that involves one female and two "Dicks" does not, in any way mean the two Herculeses would also fu.ck each other's as.s. It's just one example, I know, but it's prolly the lamest one.
:-o ba't ngayon ko lang alam to?! :eek:
Pero di nga, being in bed naked with another naked man, kahit may naked woman pa kasama, is already gay enough for me. Bisexual na yun. Ibig sabihin ba "abnormal" lang kapag may penetration na between 2 dudes, pero kung wala eh considered "normal" pa din?
Basta para sakin, what straight people do in bed is normal for straight people. What gays do in bed is normal for gays. Bakit kailangan i-compare eh magkaiba naman talaga? Kung yung gays ginagamit ang butas nila for entry instead of exit, eh natural! Wala sila nung butas ng babae eh. Yung ibang babae nga gusto din sa likod eh. Who's to say about "natural design/purpose" of body parts? Kayong mga dudes na mahilig sumisid? Eh di abnormal na din kayo?
I don't know about you but 2 balls slapping at each other is also pretty gay to me. Kahit sabihin mo double penetration mo yung babae. hahahaha
If the purpose was to pleasure or do the woman and the two men not engaging in actual sex, then that ain't gay. If Emily Blunt would ask both of us to jump in bed with her and bone her, I'd happily oblige even if there's you on the other side of the bed.
But didn't you say that two men engaging in a sexual activity doesn't necessarily translate to them being homosexuals?
Dang napaisip ako. Hirap nga! :lol:
I'd do it but still think of it as gay. Lalo na pag tiningnan mo ako ng masama. So yeah, i did a gay act but i remain straight. Guess that does prove bolt's point :D
I don't know about you but 2 balls slapping at each other is also pretty gay to me. Kahit sabihin mo double penetration mo yung babae. hahahaha
but to induldge your curiosity guitarwiz02, ang dami sexual acts na male to male na ginagawa ng mga straights, just because they can do it. but they are still straight.
sexual orientation precedes sexual preference and sexual acts. and human sexual bonding is just too complicated. that's why it merits more understanding.
ang dami sexual acts na male to male na ginagawa ng mga straights, just because they can do it. but they are still straight.
You shouldn't have bothered 'coz I'm far from being curious.
Just because?! Seriously, who, in their right frame of mind, would engage themselves in a sexual act with the same sex and yet declare they're still straight? You? Now, I don't know about you but THAT'S totally gay for me. No straight fella would ever do that. Whether they're in it for the money or fame, it doesn't matter. The fact that they're able to perform such an act means they already have that tendency to be gay.
Dang napaisip ako. Hirap nga! :lol:
I'd do it but still think of it as gay. Lalo na pag tiningnan mo ako ng masama. So yeah, i did a gay act but i remain straight. Guess that does prove bolt's point :D
Best way to know is to ask someone who has been there. Ask him if he is still straight.
So, I'm asking you now. Are you still straight? :lol:
Seriously, anyone you can suggest? You know someone personally?
Don't know. Never experienced a threesome. Although I know someone. Kaso artista e kaya maselan pagusapan.
She swears she is still straight despite having lesbian encounters.
naman o! population ang point .. kahit konte ang kaliwete, normal pa din .. let it go anuber. maganda ilan sa mga arguments mo kaya ituloy mo na yung ibang punto. talo ka na dyan sa punto na "abnormal dahil konte lang".The point here is false equivalency. Kumbinsihin mo muna ako na ang pagiging kaliwete ay behavioral rin before you correlate it with the general population.
The wife asked for a threesome that didn't involve another female. lolThat doesn't necessarily mean you'll also have sex with the other guy. Besides, kung misis ko magrerequest ng ganyan I'd slap the shit out of her.
That is just one example.
She swears she is still straight despite having lesbian encounters.Yeah, tell her to keep telling herself that.
sexual orientation precedes sexual preference and sexual acts. and human sexual bonding is just too complicated. that's why it merits more understanding.
yes and no. depends on who we are talking about. and depending on his/her sexual orientation
does this mean you have to be homosexual before you can perform sexual acts with another person of the same gender?
or because I found out that Jeff Hanneman died. Itutulog ko muna ito.
yes and no. depends on who we are talking about. and depending on his/her sexual orientation
by means of sexual orientation--- if he identifies as a homosexual, yes. kasi homosexual na siya.
by means of sexual orientation too if we are talking about a bisexual, or a straight who has incidence of same sex encounters, then no. hindi naman talaga sila identified as "homosexual".
so... homosexual acts are only considered homosexuality when it is done by homosexuals?
Same sex acts can be done by straight, bi, or ambisexual people but are not homosexuals by orientation.
The act alone doesn't constitute homosexuality as a behavior, state of being and sexual orientation.
same sex acts are not acts of homosexuality unless the acts involve homosexuals? they're just same sex acts?
Again, homosexual sex alone doesn't constitute homosexuality as a behavior, state of being and sexual orientation. Keyword is sexual orientation. People often get confused with the dictionary or legal definition that homosexuality is merely about same sex copulation. When applied to sexual orientation facts, the dictionary meaning won't logically be accurate.
Homosexual sex can be done by bisexuals but they are not homosexuals by sexual orientation. Calling homosexual sex, "homosexuality" in this context is not accurate because they are not homosexuals. However, calling it just homosexual sex or homosexual behavior by bisexuals is correct. In the discourse of sexual orientation, we prevent that confusion by calling homosexual sex just as homosexual sex and not homosexuality. Because homosexuality refers to a person's homosexual sexual orientation---an enduring state of being and behavior related to that state of being.
not accurate=incorrect
then (according to you) homosexual sex is not homosexuality when it does not involve homosexuals, still no? Well, whatever you think makes you look cool, I guess.
is heterosexual sex "heterosexuality" when two bisexual people are involved? does the heterosexual sex make them heterosexual in orientation?
is homosexual sex, "homosexuality" when two bisexual people are involved? does the homosexual sex make them homosexual in orientation?
^well not according to The Order of Pseudo-Science Ministries and their aircon bus evangelist.
let me rephrase further
Homosexuality is exclusive to homosexuals, correct or incorrect?
Man to Man= Gay
Woman to Woman= Lesbian/ Gay
Man to Woman= Straight
It really is that simple, folks.
The problem with the Kinsey Scale is that, it also has its flaws. The Kinsey Scale (Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale) was just an "attempt" by Alfred Kinsey to measure sexual orientation or one's sexual experience. Most even consider the scale as not comprehensive enough to cover all sexual identity issues. The accuracy of the scale is definitely in question.
A person who has or had sexual encounters with the same sex can no longer be labelled as "straight." That's common sense. I don't think Robin Padilla would ever have an "incidental" sex with a man. Ha ha! Why? 'Coz he is that "straight." That simple. Lemme break this down:
According to Alfred Kinsey's chart or scale:
0 is Exclusively heterosexual......Okay, this is self-explanatory.
1 is Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual.....Therefore, not straight. The person is only "predominantly" heterosexual, not totally straight.
2 is Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual....."More than incidentally homosexual" doesn't sound much straight to me.
3 is Equally heterosexual and homosexual......Bi-sexual. Obviously, not straight.
4 is Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual......"Predominantly homosexual." Self-explanatory
5 is Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual......Same as 4.
6 is Exclusively homosexual......GAY!!!
So, what does this tell us? A man can only be identified as either straight or gay. Okay, let's include bi-sexual. If one has or had sex with the same gender, one cannot identify himself/ herself as straight.
let me rephrase further
Homosexuality is exclusive to homosexuals, correct or incorrect?
Why not rephrase further para klarong klaro na?
"Homosexuality is the sexual orientation of homosexuals."
Hindi naman binary lang ang gender as what you say: gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual lang. Meaning they don't all behave the same. It's not that simple folks.
I didn't say it was a definite reference.
but some straight people can engage in same sex intercourse yet identify as straight.
It's not that simple folks.
Baloney! Any man who "can" engage in same sex intercourse is absolutely gay. They cannot identify themselves as straight. That just doesn't make any sense. It's either they deny being gay or they completely lie about it. We can even hit the survey route for this if you want and we don't even have to go too far. We can conduct that here on PM. You'll be hard-pressed proving your claim, I tell yah.
Baloney! Any man who "can" engage in same sex intercourse is absolutely gay. They cannot identify themselves as straight. That just doesn't make any sense. It's either they deny being gay or they completely lie about it. We can even hit the survey route for this if you want and we don't even have to go too far. We can conduct that here on PM. You'll be hard-pressed proving your claim, I tell yah.
including rape?
(im talking about life in the middle east)
^got your point
I didn't say it was a definite reference.
Baloney! Any man who "can" engage in same sex intercourse is absolutely gay. They cannot identify themselves as straight. That just doesn't make any sense. It's either they deny being gay or they completely lie about it. We can even hit the survey route for this if you want and we don't even have to go too far. We can conduct that here on PM. You'll be hard-pressed proving your claim, I tell yah.
ang dali lang ng sinasabi ko.
homosexuality is the sexual orientation of homosexuals.
homsexual sex, is just that--- homosexual sex, not indicative of an individual's sexual orientation.
gamitin mo nalang utak mo kung accurate ba, may merit o logical yang dalawang statements mo.
I didn't say it was a definite reference.
Baloney! Any man who "can" engage in same sex intercourse is absolutely gay. They cannot identify themselves as straight. That just doesn't make any sense. It's either they deny being gay or they completely lie about it. We can even hit the survey route for this if you want and we don't even have to go too far. We can conduct that here on PM. You'll be hard-pressed proving your claim, I tell yah.
I don't think this is too hard to understand bro :) But there are those who refuse to do so.
I didn't say it was a definite reference.
Baloney! Any man who "can" engage in same sex intercourse is absolutely gay. They cannot identify themselves as straight. That just doesn't make any sense. It's either they deny being gay or they completely lie about it. We can even hit the survey route for this if you want and we don't even have to go too far. We can conduct that here on PM. You'll be hard-pressed proving your claim, I tell yah.
I don't think this is too hard to understand bro :) But there are those who refuse to do so.
Oh well, what's new? :-D
I didn't say it was a definite reference.
Baloney! Any man who "can" engage in same sex intercourse is absolutely gay. They cannot identify themselves as straight. That just doesn't make any sense. It's either they deny being gay or they completely lie about it. We can even hit the survey route for this if you want and we don't even have to go too far. We can conduct that here on PM. You'll be hard-pressed proving your claim, I tell yah.
I don't think this is too hard to understand bro :) But there are those who refuse to do so.
Oh well, what's new? :-D
"their" way of thinking? :-D
just curious, how about those people doing it just for the money? gay or not?
but come to think of it, if they enjoy doing it (the deed) they gotta be gay...right?
I didn't say it was a definite reference.
Now, why would even someone refer to something that's not definite? But since the scale is (not definite), I don't think people should look at it as a guide or basis for identifying or classifying one's sexual behavior or status. Numbers 1-5 are, in fact, irrelevant or of no use, at all. If you're straight, you're straight. If you're gay, then you're gay. That simple.
Baloney! Any man who "can" engage in same sex intercourse is absolutely gay. They cannot identify themselves as straight. That just doesn't make any sense. It's either they deny being gay or they completely lie about it.
We can even hit the survey route for this if you want and we don't even have to go too far. We can conduct that here on PM. You'll be hard-pressed proving your claim, I tell yah.
QuoteIt's not that simple folks.
It is to me. Or shall I say, to a vast majority?
ang dali lang ng sinasabi ko.
homosexuality is the sexual orientation of homosexuals.
homsexual sex, is just that--- homosexual sex, not indicative of an individual's sexual orientation.
gamitin mo nalang utak mo kung accurate ba, may merit o logical yang dalawang statements mo.
hahaha...takot kang ma-quote no? because your doctrines imply ridiculousness underneath the science you use to cover-up the inconclusiveness of the claims you propagate as facts.
we live in a world where homosexuality is also defined as a sexual act (romantic, attraction, etc.. and not just intercourse). therefore, homosexual sex is definitely homosexuality. therefore homosexuality can be chosen, pseudo-scientific bigotry aside.
I was born a lesbian, but I think I'm beginning to identify as a supersexual*. (If people can come up with their own terms on gender identity and some regard them to be true, why can't I)
*Supersexual - a male or female identifying as a gender that attracts multiple persons of the opposite sex at the same time and makes the same amount of persons from the same sex envious. sometimes also called as alphasexual.
just curious, how about those people doing it just for the money? gay or not?
but come to think of it, if they enjoy doing it (the deed) they gotta be gay...right?
Because there are hundreds of scales like that that exists. And they say the same things. This is just the simplest example. It is an illustrarion of human sexual behavior relating to their sexual orientation. If you are straight you are straight, agree, grade 0 exists. but there are straights who have same sex incidence 1, and 2.
But they exist. Find someone like that, and tell it to themselves, Baloney! Andami sex behavior research dito sa Pilipinas.
Agree. I'd be hard pressed here to prove my point lalo na thread pa lang na ito heterosexIST na ang tono. May gay thread na ininvite maglabasan mga gay, wala lumabas. What do you expect? lol
Yes. It seems THAT simple to a vast majority. Kita naman dito. Lalo na kung kulang sa info.
Hundreds of scales that exist, yet, not one is accurate.
I don't think I'd be successful in finding one 'coz there really aren't, unless they lie or deny about it. But hey, why don't you look for one for me, ei?
Wala lumabas e kasi baka wala naman talaga. Lam mo namang pilitin mo maging [pichapie] ang hindi, 'di ba? Besides, you'll be hard-pressed because your claim does not truly exist. It's just an idea.
Huwaw! Ang lagay e ikaw busog sa info? :lol: :lol: :lol:
We call your question a semantic landmine. Mixing two definitions in 2 clauses in a sentence. Kaya hindi ko ininduldge. I have always stuck with the definition of homosexuality as a sexual orientation- a state of being. Ang isang homosexual, hindi naman niya napipili ang sexual orientation niya na homosexuality regardless if they can choose to engage or suppress their need for homosexual sex.
Paano mo nalaman? Na review mo na lahat ng 200+ scales? O tamad lang?
Di mo pa nga sinusbukan maghanap, alam mo na agad. O tamad lang?
Gutom pa.
yeah... suuuuure. sexual orientation has yet to be proven definitively to be un-choosable, none of the proofs you presented seem to be in that vicinity, all just says "it looks like it". but homosexuality as an act can be chosen, balibaliktarin mo pa. in the real world homosexuality is defined by an and/or between act and sexual orientation/behavior. so carry on if you wish, right now your cult's beliefs defy logic.
Simple lang. You admitted that Kinsey's Scale is inaccurate or indefinite. And that's probably already the most revered one. Mother of all such scales 'yan e. Then sabi mo almost all e parehas ang result. Shheesshh! Highly likely, kopyahan na lang 'yan.
Ikaw ba e nakahanap na? If yes, ipakilala mo sakin and ako ang kakausap. Bakit dadaanin pa sa pahirapan, di ba?
Mukhang gutom ka pa nga. Kulang na kulang pa e.
everybody already knows that there are pre natal factors that influence homosexuality, if you can choose that, then wow...we have discovered a sentient embryo who knows his way around the womb. kung may mahanap ka evidence na walang pre natal factors and biological factors involved, then i'd happily reconsider my stance.
Defining homosexuality outside or independent of sexual orientation is already passe and inaccurate. in proper discourse homo-eroticism manifested outside homosexuality is referred to as homosexual behavior, homosexual sex, homosexual encounter etc etc., no longer as "homosexuality". proper semantics. homosexuality is a sexual orientation. di mo talaga maiintindihan yan pag dinefine mo siya independent of sexual orientation.
everybody already knows that there are pre natal factors that influence homosexuality, if you can choose that, then wow...we have discovered a sentient embryo who knows his way around the womb. kung may mahanap ka evidence na walang pre natal factors and biological factors involved, then i'd happily reconsider my stance.
Defining homosexuality outside or independent of sexual orientation is already passe and inaccurate. in proper discourse homo-eroticism manifested outside homosexuality is referred to as homosexual behavior, homosexual sex, homosexual encounter etc etc., no longer as "homosexuality". proper semantics. homosexuality is a sexual orientation. di mo talaga maiintindihan yan pag dinefine mo siya independent of sexual orientation.
O di sige in proper context:
Defining homosexuality outside or independent of sexual orientation isalready passe and inaccurate.no longer the "in" thing. inproper discoursepretending to be wise and progressive, homo-eroticism manifested outside homosexuality is referred to as homosexual behavior, homosexual sex, homosexual encounter etc etc., no longer as "homosexuality" not because the evidence or the studies are conclusive but because people think it makes you look "cool".
everybody already knows that thereare pre natal factorsare people who believe that there are pre-natal factors that influence homosexuality but has not been proven definitively, however these same people ridiculously consider them to be facts.
How's that?
Saan mo nakuha na mother of all scales ang Kinsey, e ang dami scales na di related sa Kinsey? Pano mo nalaman na "highly likely" kopyahan lahat nung 200+?
Oo naman. Meron ako mga kilala, pero wala ako balak pakiusap sila sa iyo.
Bakit ba ka-tamad mo maghanap? Kahit sa simpleng google may mahahanap ka. Email mo. Baka malaman mo may something in common kayo. Hahahaha!
For some people ignorance is bliss. O baka ayaw lang maghanap baka may ma discover na awkward sa sarili. Diyan naman nangagagaling ang homophobia.
plain old common sense won't be enough to understand something as varied and complicated as human sexuality. i have lesbian relatives, as well as gay and transsexual friends and work mates. i owe it to them to understand them more deeply and reasonably. i go where the evidence is.
sure then, defy logic and go against common sense all you want. My friends and family all receive the love and support they deserve from me, or at least I try to give more than I can all the time, regardless of their sexual preferences. I don't owe anyone jack. And what evidence are you talking about?
sure then, defy logic and go against common sense all you want. My friends and family all receive the love and support they deserve from me, or at least I try to give more than I can all the time, regardless of their sexual preferences. I don't owe anyone jack. And what evidence are you talking about?
He's asking for the proof of/that homosexuality can actually be chosen and that it is not influenced in the womb. Dapat daw e nasa tiyan pa lang ang bata e badingarzi na. :razz:
E sino ba ang nagsimula ng scale or chart na 'yan? Most were followed, or at least, modelled after his. Kaya nga "highly likely" 'di ba? 'Di naman definite 'yun. Marunong ka naman siguro mag-english.
Spare me the hassle ika nga kung talagang gusto mo ma-prove yung ridiculous claim mo. And why would I resort to Google if there's already an actual person to verify this with? Makes sense? Ayaw mo sila ipaki-usap sakin kasi imaginary friends mo lang sila. 100% sure ako we absolutely have nothing in common in terms of behavior and actions. Baka ikaw meron kasi ikaw ang mahilig sa kanila. Hi hi hi!
Bakit nga ako maghahanap pa e meron ka na? Ayaw mo ng mas madaling process? Pahirapan pa talaga? Present 'em once and for all at ng magkaalaman na. Be honest nga lang at 'wag mo sila tuturuan mag-sinungaling. Malamang ikaw ang may awkward na na-discover sa sarili mo, e napapaligiran ka nga nila e. May relatives ka ngang ganun e so mas malaki ang percentage na ikaw ang makakuha ng "gay gene." :lol: :lol: :lol:
He's asking for the proof of/that homosexuality can actually be chosen and that it is not influenced in the womb. Dapat daw e nasa tiyan pa lang ang bata e badingarzi na. :razz:
sure then, defy logic and go against common sense all you want. My friends and family all receive the love and support they deserve from me, or at least I try to give more than I can all the time, regardless of their sexual preferences. I don't owe anyone jack.
And what evidence are you talking about?
K. I'm sure your friends who are gay would all agree with you that god only made man and woman. Common sense lang.
I'm talking about evidence that homosexuality is caused by a host of biological, psychological, neural and environmental factors. If there is evidence that points out the contrary and they can change their sexual orientation in a snap, then I'd reconsider.
Kaso wala naman. All the research just reinforces what we already know. Homosexuality is a natural variation of human bonding with biological and environmental causes, that sexual orientation is not a choice and not a sickness or an abnormality.
I'm talking about evidence that homosexuality is believed to be caused by a host of biological, psychological, neural and environmental factors but none of these factors have yet been concluded to be true. If there is evidence that points out the contrary and they can change their sexual orientation in a snap, then I'd reconsider.
K. I'm sure your friends who are gay would all agree with you that god only made man and woman. Common sense lang.
I'm talking about evidence that homosexuality is caused by a host of biological, psychological, neural and environmental factors. If there is evidence that points out the contrary and they can change their sexual orientation in a snap, then I'd reconsider.
Kaso wala naman. All the research just reinforces what we already know. Homosexuality is a natural variation of human bonding with biological and environmental causes, that sexual orientation is not a choice and not a sickness or an abnormality.
To put that more accurately:QuoteI'm talking about evidence that homosexuality is believed to be caused by a host of biological, psychological, neural and environmental factors but none of these factors have yet been concluded to be true. If there is evidence that points out the contrary and they can change their sexual orientation in a snap, then I'd reconsider.
Now, you don't know who my friends are, but you are sure that they'd agree with me? Jumping to conclusions is really part of your religious practice huh?
^ Evidence, shmevidence. There are more evident reasons using plain old common sense ...
Galing mo naman alam mo na lahat ng 200 scales. Pati history at origin nila alam mo.
I'm sure that I'd want to spare them from your heterosexist rhetoric. Kaya kung gusto mo maghanap dami naman iba diyan. Huwag tamad. Hindi naman "hassle", di naman "mahirap".
Gusto mo PM ko pa sa iyo yung lesbiana na artistang kilala ko. Naman Boy Abunda, huwag naman pahalata pagka tsismoso. lol
mas madali pa maghanap sa google kaysa sa dinami ng tinype mo dito, at nireply mo. at inedit mo na quote. lol
May gay gene na? Saan? I wonder what will you do to your son if he turned out gay.
Merong ganon? Saan? Ang alam ko wala naman ako sinabing ganyan. :lol: :lol: :lol:
^ Evidence, shmevidence. There are more evident reasons using plain old common sense ...
Cause, fcuk the scientific method right? It only like brought us to the moon, explained the origin of the universe, split the atom, explain quantum theory, explain our origins, wipeout smallpox, sent a rover to mars, gave you the internet, and gave you that thingamajig you used to post this. Common sense could have done all that.
E ganun talaga. :lol:
Asus! Palusot nanaman, ineng? Am pretty sure naintindihan mo ito, "And why would I resort to Google if there's already an actual person to verify this with?" How hard is it really to oblige or entertain my request if you know deep inside you're right and I'm wrong? We, or I, will be dealing with "real" or actual human beings here. Ain't that more fulfilling and precise than Google?
QuoteGusto mo PM ko pa sa iyo yung lesbiana na artistang kilala ko. Naman Boy Abunda, huwag naman pahalata pagka tsismoso. lol
O kitam! E di inamin mo din na lesbiana siya. So, pano naging straight ang lesbian? Gusto mo ba mag-pustahan pa tayo?
E bakit nga kelangan pang mag-Google kung may actual na tao nga na pwedeng kausapin naman na kakilala mo? Mas maganda 'yun at least kaharap mong makaka-usap 'yun. Mas verifiable pati. Kaya nga mas maraming companies na ang gusto e personal interviews compared sa phone. So, same lang din 'yun dito. Gets?
You obviously missed the joke on "gay gene." My bad. But kantutinkopit, baka nga biglang maka-discover ng gay gene, e may God gene na nga e. :lol:QuoteMerong ganon? Saan? Ang alam ko wala naman ako sinabing ganyan. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Okay. 'Di na ako magjo-joke ulit sa'yo kasi hirap ka maka-gets. >:D
I must have pretty weak gay friends because many of them say at some point they really tried very hard to be straight but failed.
I think it's just harder for young males to experiment. I guess "nagmamarka" yung act agad so to speak kaya matindi na talaga yung tendency mo if you have the guts to try homosexual encounters. On the other hand i know girls who say they've had lesbian encounters in the past but they remained straight. Also, notice how girls having crushes on other girls is mostly regarded as cute. Ano kasi tawag nila dun, girl-crush nga ba? Kung lalake ka subukan mo i-post sa FB na man-crush mo si coco martin. Good luck.
It can never be argued that gays are normal if the definition of "normal" is based on heterosexuality. It's like saying Spanish is not normal because it's not English. Straights are different to gays as much as males are different to females. What are we all crying for evidence for? Homosexuality is not a theory. Gays exist and if we just listen to them we will learn that they chose to be gay no more than they chose which nationality to be born in.
^ Evidence, shmevidence. There are more evident reasons using plain old common sense ...
Cause, fcuk the scientific method right? It only like brought us to the moon, explained the origin of the universe, split the atom, explain quantum theory, explain our origins, wipeout smallpox, sent a rover to mars, gave you the internet, and gave you that thingamajig you used to post this. Common sense could have done all that.
Coming from a guy who believes scientific theories and opinions are the same, is there anything new or is this unexpected?
Ang galing mo talaga ser. Paano mo nga ulit nalaman na mother of all scales ang Kinsey scale boss?
Ang dami mo na tinype, di ka pa rin maka search sa google? Hirap na hirap ka na sa lagay na yan?
Nagkamali lang ako type. Straight siya. Sabagay akala ko din dati lesbiana siya. Tsaka kung sinabi niya straight siya, may magagawa ba ako? May magagawa ka? Kahit makipagpustahan ka pa.
Keyword: straight but had homosexual sex
Cntl C, Cntrl V
Dami results o! Galing din yan sa mga tunay na tao. LOL Wag tamad ser.
For someone who claims he is remotely interested in the subject, lagi ka nandito. :wink:
Oh yes. Why not? We'd have a whole different set of failures if we relied on your kind's brand of mentality of "jumping to conclusions".^ Evidence, shmevidence. There are more evident reasons using plain old common sense ...
Cause, fcuk the scientific method right? It only like brought us to the moon, explained the origin of the universe, split the atom, explain quantum theory, explain our origins, wipeout smallpox, sent a rover to mars, gave you the internet, and gave you that thingamajig you used to post this. Common sense could have done all that.
I know right? Since common sense na din ang usapan, who in their right minds would CHOOSE to be gay in a society that is dominated by homophobes? In a society na prejudiced sa iba ang sexual preference, who would want to be gay? Akala ko ba common sense? That's as common as it comes.
So is there any evidence to the contrary that homosexuality isn't caused by biological and environmental factors? Even a shred of research to point me out that this is all just an LGBT conspiracy. A rather large one. Wala ba study diyan na nagsasabi na abnormality, unnatural o psychological problem lang ang homosexuality? Substantiated ba yung sinasabi mo na parang GAS o pagyoyosi lang ang kabakl@an?Ok, you are implying that it is caused by biological and environmental factors, specially mentioning pre-natal factors. Sure. If you think your prophets are near proving it definitively and want to be jump the gun and believe that they have done so already. Then go ahead. I just choose to wait until they do.
I don't have to know your gay friends. I hope and I'm sure they appreciate your archaic beliefs about them or should i put [sarcasm][/sarcasm] before the sentence to aid your comprehension?
By the way,
Have you tried asking one "When did she/he, decided to be lesbian/gay"?
E hindi nga ba? Kanino ba nag-originate 'yun? Ahhhh, sarap naman pakinggan na tinatawag moakong boss. hi hi!
'Di kao interested mag-search sa Google. Interested ako sa mga ka-kosa mo, ineng. 'Di ko naman makaka-usap ng personalan si Google e. Iba pa din ang first-hand witness or encounter. O, asan na sila? O baka naman ikaw talaga 'yan, sinasabi mo lang may ganun kang friends?
Asus! Basta na lang makalusot. Ha ha! That wasn't a typo error. You truly know her as a lesbian, that's why. It is, what it is. May magagawa ba? Meron. Maraming paraan para mapa-amin ang isang tao. One reason why yer scared to let me meet 'em. You might just get a different answer and that will totally crush yer super ego. :lol:
Ah so, mas credible ang makikita ko sa net kesa maka-usap ako ng totoong tao na may ganyang case? Funny, pag sa religion thread, hingi ka ng hingi ng "physical" evidence pag naco-corner ka. Well, let's just say, am doing the same thing. Gusto ko physically present ang kausap ko. And since you're surrounded by it, according to you, you can easily provide me with proofs. So why not indulge and get this over with and finally prove your claim?
Am here to entertain you, but more importantly, to educate you. Naks! :wink: Natural, am here kasi kinakausap mo ako at may mga pinapasagutan ka sakin. 'Lam mo namang 'di kita pansinin, ate? 'Di naman ako ganun ka-bad. ^-^
Right now, some people are faced with a choice to go out in the open and practice homosexuality or to strain themselves to being straight for whatever reason. Whether they are homosexuals or not and for whatever reason they choose to be homosexuals (whether they are in their right mind or not). I have stated, that as humans it is their right to choose and live freely with their choices.
Oh yes. Why not? We'd have a whole different set of failures if we relied on your kind's brand of mentality of "jumping to conclusions".^ Evidence, shmevidence. There are more evident reasons using plain old common sense ...
Cause, fcuk the scientific method right? It only like brought us to the moon, explained the origin of the universe, split the atom, explain quantum theory, explain our origins, wipeout smallpox, sent a rover to mars, gave you the internet, and gave you that thingamajig you used to post this. Common sense could have done all that.I know right? Since common sense na din ang usapan, who in their right minds would CHOOSE to be gay in a society that is dominated by homophobes? In a society na prejudiced sa iba ang sexual preference, who would want to be gay? Akala ko ba common sense? That's as common as it comes.
see, again you are jumping into a conversation you are obviously incapable of participating in. Pero sige, to throw you a bone:
Whether or not people choose to be homosexuals, homosexual sex is homosexuality, and people can to choose to have homosexual sex, therefore, people can choose homosexuality.
Try again.
Then I rest my case as well by quoting my previous post
Right now, some people are faced with a choice to go out in the open and practice homosexuality or to strain themselves to being straight for whatever reason. Whether they are homosexuals or not and for whatever reason they choose to be homosexuals (whether they are in their right mind or not). I have stated, that as humans it is their right to choose and live freely with their choices.
On a serious note, I had a lot of friends who struggled to come out. All their families believed they can change when they came out. Like they can be straight "again" or not "practice homosexuality" but they know deep inside that is not possible. Even if they have a wife, two kids and a dog, they would still be homosexuals inside. Choice is an illusion given to them by their peers and family because they just can't accept that they are just like that.
The evidence you need is just hanging around with your friends, workmates, and family. Ask a gay person. Understand them. They'll tell you answers that all the science and research is already confirming everyday.
With that, I rest my case and argument with you.
I don't care where you believe homosexuality's origins are, those are your beliefs. Until it is fact.... you know the rest. So again, sexual orientation and sexual preference aside, people can choose to engage in homosexual sex. Homosexual sex is homosexuality whether or not it causes them to be the homosexuals you define.
Oh sarcasm. Why art thou lost with this one.
Again, this is from you :
Evidence, shmevidence.
I rest my case.
Pare ganun talaga pag heterosexist ang society. Mahirap. Paninindigan ng karamihan na valuable ang heterosexual. Bakit hindi na lang tanggapin na iba iba ang sexual orientation ng tao. Maliit na footnote lang sa biology ang homsexuality. It exists. It is normal. You can't change it. And people should get over that fact.Yes, because because gender differences are all just social constructs that we all need to get out of, right?
In the broad tradition of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Magnus Hirschfield, and Adolf Brand, Alfred Kinsey and his assistants were dedicated to the normalization of sexual deviancy, including both sodomy and pederasty. Researchers Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel explain: “It is clear that he (Kinsey) shared (co‐researcher Wardell) Pomeroy’s view that Christians inherited an almost paranoid approach to sexual behavior from the Jews.”**(Robinson in Reisman, Dr. Judith A., and Eichel, Edward W. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lafayette, Louisiana, Huntington House, 1990, 1992:204.)
In a 1992 article on the subject, author Michael Ebert quotes Pomeroy as saying, “People seem to think that any (sexual) contact between children and adults has a bad effect on the child. I say this can be a loving and thoughtful, responsible sexual activity.”* Thus, it became the goal of Kinsey and Pomeroy to reinforce their views of sodomy, pedophilia, and other forms of sexual deviancy through their pseudo‐scientific work at the so‐called Institute for Sex Research.*(Ebert, Michael. “Pedophilia Steps into the Daylight;” Focus on the Family Citizen. November 16, 1992 Pg. 6f.)
Yes, because because gender differences are all just social constructs that we all need to get out of, right?
For a "straight" guy, you seem to be very passionate about shoving your gay "facts" down our throats.
Hey, how about a bit of trivia about Alfred Kinsey:
*(Robinson in Reisman, Dr. Judith A., and Eichel, Edward W. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lafayette, Louisiana, Huntington House, 1990, 1992:204.)
A very just & noble cause by the "Father of the Sexual Revolution" Here's more from this guy & his cohorts:
*(Ebert, Michael. “Pedophilia Steps into the Daylight;” Focus on the Family Citizen. November 16, 1992 Pg. 6f.)
LOL at these perverts masquerading as "scientists". I just pity the folks who hold these guys' studies in high regard & worship them as "facts".
Nagbo-browse ako ng incest porn tapos bigla na lang ako napadpad dito. Weird. :?
Unless you can present a counter argument that homosexuality is a sickness, then I'd be happy to offend your sensibilities.I've already reiterated many times that homosexuality is a deviation from nature's inherent design to propagate itself, but I think I have already proven that you're not that receptive to real facts.
Oh really now? Digging up my old posts & using my own fetish against me instead of putting out a counter-argument against what I've thrown at Kinsey? At least ang sa akin hanggang pantasya lang & I'm not some pseudo-scientist disguising my sick perversion as "science". Alright, I apologize. I'm sorry for completely destroying your idol Alfred Kinsey's credibility. Judging from how you responded it seems that I've struck a nerve. Happy now?Nagbo-browse ako ng incest porn tapos bigla na lang ako napadpad dito. Weird. :?Yeah. LOL at these pervert scientists says the guy who digs some incest. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Don't read Plato. He sucked little Greek d1cks for breakfast.Well, at least hindi mo na kailangang aminin na "normal" rin ang tingin mo sa pederasty because you've impled that since Plato is doing it, why can't we too?
Awwww yeaaaahh!
http://talk.philmusic.com/index.php?topic=292404.0;topicseen
GUYS MANHUNT MUNA SA PHILMUSIC..
May scammer on the loose na tumalo kay TechBp..
kailangang kalampagin Philmusic..
I've already reiterated many times that homosexuality is a deviation from nature's inherent design to propagate itself, but I think I have already proven that you're not that receptive to real facts.
Oh really now? Digging up my old posts & using my own fetish against me instead of putting out a counter-argument against what I've thrown at Kinsey? At least ang sa akin hanggang pantasya lang & I'm not some pseudo-scientist disguising my sick perversion as "science". Alright, I apologize. I'm sorry for completely destroying your idol Alfred Kinsey's credibility. Judging from how you responded it seems that I've struck a nerve. Happy now?
You stooping this low means that I've probably won this little debate. I expected better.
Well, at least hindi mo na kailangang aminin na "normal" rin ang tingin mo sa pederasty because you've impled that since Plato is doing it, why can't we too?
Why am I not surprised?
Mr. Thrower, there's nothing wrong with admitting you're gay. Nasa modern times na tayo & I'm sure na most people won't discriminate since they're more open minded. Besides, pwede namang malunasan iyan e, just look at this guy right here:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img401/4769/1366154921483.jpg)
See how happy he is now that he has found his true purpose in life after being cured?
At bakit nandito ito? Hahaha! Wala naman nagbabasa ng sub forum na ito! Hahahaha
Puwede na kayo makigulo Gandy at Ysei!
Exactly the point kaya ni-move yung thread dito! :lol:
Kidding aside, pasok pa din sa KKK yung topic instead of being just an AGT type thread.
I trust that Gandy and Ysei would behave given their current "situation" lest we suspend them from KKK too! :-P
Exactly the point kaya ni-move yung thread dito! :lol:
Kidding aside, pasok pa din sa KKK yung topic instead of being just an AGT type thread.
I trust that Gandy and Ysei would behave given their current "situation" lest we suspend them from KKK too! :-P
Exactly the point kaya ni-move yung thread dito! :lol:
Kidding aside, pasok pa din sa KKK yung topic instead of being just an AGT type thread.
I trust that Gandy and Ysei would behave given their current "situation" lest we suspend them from KKK too! :-P
So boss, paano naging mother of all scales yun kung yung iba nga di related sa Kinsey? Saan mo nakuha na doon nanggaling at nag originate mga yan?
Lol di mo naman kailangan kausapin. Titingnan mo lang kung may statistic nga na ganon. Bakit mo kakausapin? Curious ka? May itatanong ka na medyo awkward? hahahaha
Huwag ka na. Gusto mo lang ng kuwentong lesbyana na galing sa straight e.
Dami dami straight diyan na nagka homo experience pero straight. Madali lang maghanap.
Mga tunay na tao din yang nasa Google, huwag ka mag alala. Puwede mo sila i-email sa mga blog nila. May statistics. May findings. Hindi mo na nga kailangan kausapin. You just have to verify they exist. Physical proof pa rin yan. Kaso tamad ka.
Mas madali pa nga i-google ang proof kesa sayangin ko pa oras ko na pakiusap sa iyo. Dami dami ganyan sa mundo. Which I can't say about your god na kahit census statistic wala. hahaha
Sige 'te!
Well, alright, that was just my assumption from the fact that he popularized such measure or scale. That really doesn't hurt anyway, does it? But just the same, mother of all such scales or not, it still doesn't prove anything aside from the fact that it's just an idea.
To verify first-hand. You've been deflecting the challenge from the get-go 'coz you really got nothing. What a shame, really. It seems that, whichever thread you choose to participate in, you always fail. Awkward? Me? Ha ha! The feeling of awkwardness actually lies on you. Yer just too damn scared to reveal yer true sexual orientation. Reason being why you keep your amigas from being, shall I say, interviewed. :lol:
Kwentong lesbiyana is perfectly fine. Lesbians, after all, are still of the female or opposite sex breed. You, on the other hand, are obviously fond of "kwentong bak.la." Now, that's disturbing. Unless you come-out in the open.
So, by this, you agree that The Bible is considered as physical proof? Nice! Anyway, this is already an indication that you don't know where to go from here. Since you've ducked my challenge more than a couple of times and you can't seem to prove your ridiculous claim, you've once again pulled God into the mix to deviate the topic. Classy. :lol:
In 2003, Pathela's team performed telephone interviews with nearly 4,200 New York City men. They conducted the interviews in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian; a translation service helped with interviews in Greek, Korean, Yiddish, Polish, and Haitian Creole.
In nearly every study of sexual behavior, the percentage of men who report sex with men is higher than the percentage of men who report being gay.
So Pathela and colleagues first asked the men if they were bisexual, gay, or straight. Then they asked about specific sexual behaviors.
Some of the findings:
Straight-identified men who have sex with men report fewer sex partners than gay men.
Straight-identified men who have sex with men report fewer STDs in the past year than gay men.
Straight-identified men who have sex with men are less likely than gay men to report using a condom during their last sexual encounter.
Straight-identified men who have sex with men are more likely to be foreign born than gay men.
Also, a man who says he is straight but is having sex with other men is more likely to be married than a straight man who has sex with women, according to the survey. Only 54% of the men who say they're straight and have sex with women are married, compared with the 70% marriage rate among the men who say they're straight but have sex with men.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/news/20060918/many-straight-men-have-gay-sexSometimes these "studies" are just too damn funny. What next, "More women ages 18-26 have sex with Rottweilers than with men"?
Kitams. 2 minutes lang sa google 'te, may 20+ people for interview ka na at may statistics ka pa.
Anong mahirap doon? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
proves that there is a statistic that belongs to the gradients.
You can still verify first hand. Totoo pa rin naman yung mga taong nasa Google, yung mga nasa Yahoo Answers at yung mga nasa ibang forums. Sasagot din naman yan pag kinausap mo. Hahaha tamad ka lang.
Sa dinami mo na-type, may mahahanap ka na.
All this insinuation that I'm gay because I'm a gay symphatizer is ooooooooooold. And a double standard rears its ugly head. You are ok with lesbians but gays are an upfront to your masculinity? Insecure?
The bible is physical proof that humans wrote it. Not of god, or whatever magic unicorns you have.
Anyway, I didn't duck your challenge of giving proof. I just refused letting some people meet you. Knowing na ka-chismoso mong tao, mas chismos ka pa sa parlor g@y. Malamang di ko sila papakilala sa iyo babae pa man din. Mukha ka pa manyakis na walang chicks o desperado sa babae. Call ko na yun na di sila pakilala sa iyo. hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Asa ka pa brad.
But I gave you other avenues to get to your inquiry. That's still me giving proof. Call it what you will. Tamad ka lang maghanap.
Dami tao oh. Kausapin mo isat isa. Email mo. Webcam kayo. Hanap. Usap. Deal!
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080702084010AAN1dEw
Tao pa rin yan. hahahaha!
And statistics:
http://www.webmd.com/sex/news/20060918/many-straight-men-have-gay-sex
Kitams. 2 minutes lang sa google 'te, may 20+ people for interview ka na at may statistics ka pa.
Anong mahirap doon? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Sometimes these "studies" are just too damn funny. What next, "More women ages 18-26 have sex with Rottweilers than with men"?
But then again, it was conducted in New York.
All this insinuation that I'm gay because I'm a gay symphatizer is ooooooooooold. And a double standard rears its ugly head. You are ok with lesbians but gays are an upfront to your masculinity? Insecure?It's "affront". You're welcome.
Inaccurate stats, that is. Still far from proving your claim.
You're missing the point here. Either that, or you really do have nothing in your pocket. You've been making a fool of yourself these past couple of pages by presenting unreliable, non-credible and highly likely, unverifiable data/ proofs from the net while you claim you have "actual" friends that can "actually" prove your claim and disprove mine. That sounds ducking to me. :lol:
So old? So, you're used to being called gay? Nice. That says a lot about your true persona, y'know.
Again, you missed the message. It's okay to talk about lesbians 'coz they are, after all, still women. And women are for us (excluding you) men and vice-versa. Which, is totally normal. But yer different. You prefer stories about gay men. Eeewwww! :lol:
God created Adam and Eve, y'know. Not Adam and Steve. :lol:
Also a physical proof of His existence. :wink:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ako? Ako ang desperado at walang chicks? Tena, sobrang napatawa ako dun ah. Apir! Ha ha! Pwede ba, 'wag mo ako itulad sa sarili mo, 'te. E obvious naman sa lahat ng nakakabasa dito na ikaw ang walang chicks, e panay bak.la ang kasama mo e. Hotdog at itlog kasi ang hanap mo e no? Ha ha! Alam ba sa inyo yan? O may napagmanahan? :lol:
Wait, everything you said still sounds ducking to me. :lol:
It's "affront". You're welcome.
Yeah, if that study was done in some backwoods redneck state then just replace "gay" with "livestock". Regardless, I'm sure Bolt Thrower would think it's still "normal".Sometimes these "studies" are just too damn funny. What next, "More women ages 18-26 have sex with Rottweilers than with men"?Ha ha ha! Men that fu.ck men are still straight! Ha ha! Wooohooo!
But then again, it was conducted in New York.
Paano mo nalaman na inaccurate stats? Na review mo na lahat? hahaha
Unverifiable? Na verify mo na ba? Nabasa mo na lahat? :wink:
No. I'm used to dumb @sses like you who call LGBT straight allies as gay. You have serious masculinity issues. Ano ka bata? Luma na yan 'te.
Yeah proof of the exodus and noah's ark and all that crap. your jesus was probably gay too (if he is real). washing of 12 disciples' feet?yeah right. hahaha
Tunog napipikon ka na ah. Hahahahaha
And as far as I know, women dig liberal minded folks like me who consider gays as equals. Not insecure little boys like you. Sige na dami mo na chicks. Riiiight. You buy them all?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
E sa mukha mong yan, mga transvestite sa Rotonda mahahatak mo e. Type nila mga ganyan siguro kasi mukha ka child star artista. Maputi, mataba, mahaba buhok. Parang hilaw na Nino Muhlach.
^ give it up, dude. no one's biting your religion. getting personal ain't gonna make your beliefs true. facts don't need false prophets to propagate them. but because they aren't really facts to begin with, you're not winning anyone over.
Wahahahahahhahaha! Super LOL! Seriously, super LOL talaga! Ha ha! :lol: :lol: :lol: Sa mga pinagsasabi mo, sino ang mukhang pikon? Ha ha! So ano, may pinagmanahan nga ba? e sa dami ng sat-sat mo, ineng, e wala ka pang napapatunayan. Hinamon ka na nga't lahat, ayaw ka pa din.
Besides, Nino Mulach, as far as I know, e good-looking guy naman in person. E nakadali nga ng Beth Tamayo 'yun e. E ikaw, puros bak.la ang nadadali mo, 'di ba? Ha ha ha! 'Wag pikon, 'te. Tignan mo din muna sarili mo sa salamin, ineng. E mukha ka ngang tuod sa Skarlet o Hydra kakatambay mo dun. April Boy Regino pa style mo. Lam ko na charm mo, gustong-gusto siguro ng mga [pichapie] yung amoy mong sisig pizza 'no? Hi hi hi!
Pikon na si ate, pikon na si ate. :lol: :lol: :lol:
^ give it up, dude. no one's biting your religion. getting personal ain't gonna make your beliefs true. facts don't need false prophets to propagate them. but because they aren't really facts to begin with, you're not winning anyone over.
O di mo na sinagot yung mga ibang tanong. cop out kasi may nakitang way out. lol
Kaya nga sinabi ko hilaw na aga muhlach. lamang siya limang paligo sa iyo. asa ka pang maka beth tamayo ka.
wala naman ako sinabi pogi ako. hahahaha! uy iniistalk mo pala ako sa tapat ng hydra ah. yiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
At ako pa ang cop-out ngayon e sino ba ang hindi maka-accept ng challenge? Ha ha! Tsaka pano ko sasagutin ang paulit-ulit mong pinipilit? Kaya nga may challenge na e ayaw mo pa? Sows!
Stalk? Hardly. 'Di lang naman ikaw ang pwedeng pumunta dun pag may event 'di ba? Shhheessshhh! Ganda mo, 'te. :wink:
For the record, naka-ilang Beth Tamayo na, 'te! :lol: :lol: :razz:
O kinausap mo na ba yung mga nag reply sa yahoo answers? o ganon din yun. Tao nga din yun. Sasagot din. Anong pinagkaiba niyan?
Diyan "nagsisimula" yan. Kinsey Scale grade 1 ka na.
Magkano bili mo?
Anong klaseng sagot 'to? :lol: :lol: :lol: Mas okay na siguro ang nasa scale 1 compared sa'yo na nasa grade or scale 6 ano? :idea: Uy grabe ka naman, 'te. 'Di ko naman binili. Hi hi hi! :lol: Ikaw ba e bumibili pa ng ba.kla, 'te?
Ok lang yan. Natural lang yan may ma discover ka sa sarili mo. kaya siguro taba mo takot ka mag gym. baka ano ma discover mo sa sarili mo sa shower area. hehehe
pero seryoso pare mag gym ka. konti nalang kamukha mo na si joel cruz ng aficionado.
(http://expatphilippines.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/C13.jpg)
Ok lang yan. Natural lang yan may ma discover ka sa sarili mo. kaya siguro taba mo takot ka mag gym. baka ano ma discover mo sa sarili mo sa shower area. hehehe
pero seryoso pare mag gym ka. konti nalang kamukha mo na si joel cruz ng aficionado.
(http://expatphilippines.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/C13.jpg)
Muscles kaya 'tong sakin.
Muscles kaya 'tong sakin.
Muscles kaya 'tong sakin.
(http://s10.postimg.org/m5mbai7y1/C13.jpg)
K. Sabi ni Binay.
ano kaya outlook ng batang inampon at pinalaki ng 2 gays?
most of them grow up straight actually according to statistics. dami sa sampaloc yung 2 lesbian ang parents. mukang ok naman sila. wala pa ako nakikilala na pinalaki ng 2 gay men. usually single dad yung gay.
teka bat andito na tong thread na to. hehehe.
for me homosexuality is a concept. homosexuals, or LGBT, are all human and they deserve every right deserving of a human.
but having that right means being responsible, hindi porke member ng LGBT pwede nang mang okray ng kung sino. we have more than our fair share of LGBT here in the philippines for some odd reason. most gays i know are respectable individuals who earn a decent living. mangilan ilang lang ang "shady" characters. :wink:
ano ba ang definition ng homosexual?
ano ba ang definition ng homosexual?
Seryoso?
Is it just physical attraction or sexual attraction?
Both. Comes hand-in-hand, of course. The meaning I posted IS the definite definition. No matter how one defines it, it'll still boil down to that description.
Ok. Just to be clear, when a girl says "ay [gooey brown stuff] ang cute cute at ang hot hot talaga ni <insert you favorite actress here>. crush ko na talaga sya", hindi pa sya homosexual. Just plain physical attraction?
ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-)http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality
n.
1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.
ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-al-i-tee, or, esp. British, -seks-yoo-] Show IPAhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual
noun
sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.
1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2
: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual activity between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex. "It also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share themhttp://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/homosexual
efinition of homosexual
adjective
(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex:
homosexual desire
noun
a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
Derivatives
homosexuality
Pronunciation: /-ˌsekSHo͞oˈalitē/
Ayt. At least it's clear with me on how you define homosexual. That's my definition too. The way I understand it is, for some people in this thread, homosexuality does not have anything to do with sexual acts and what they want to do with their genitalia. Parang, "I want to become a girl/boy but I don't want any sexual relationship. I just want to become a girl/boy. Plain as that. Maybe become a nun/priest in the future"
ano ba ang definition ng homosexual?
Ayt. At least it's clear with me on how you define homosexual. That's my definition too. The way I understand it is, for some people in this thread, homosexuality does not have anything to do with sexual acts and what they want to do with their genitalia. Parang, "I want to become a girl/boy but I don't want any sexual relationship. I just want to become a girl/boy. Plain as that. Maybe become a nun/priest in the future"
^well not according to The Order of Pseudo-Science Ministries and their aircon bus evangelist.
It almost escaped my attention bro. Is this true or just a plain joke?both?
both?
Sure, anything to spice up the sex act. Put on a condom. Bring your leather, whips & ballgags too. Pagbali-baligtarin mo man ang mundo, nature's ultimate purpose for sex & being attracted to the opposite sex is for procreation. Bonus lang yung pleasure when doing the act. Being sexually attracted to one's own sex is already a deviation.I've already reiterated many times that homosexuality is a deviation from nature's inherent design to propagate itself, but I think I have already proven that you're not that receptive to real facts.Inherent design? No anal sex M-F for you then? Cumming on the face?
Have I told you that aside from incest, sometimes I also fantasize about killing people who annoy me at work? That's right, it's fantasy & imagination. And what the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand?Oh really now? Digging up my old posts & using my own fetish against me instead of putting out a counter-argument against what I've thrown at Kinsey? At least ang sa akin hanggang pantasya lang & I'm not some pseudo-scientist disguising my sick perversion as "science". Alright, I apologize. I'm sorry for completely destroying your idol Alfred Kinsey's credibility. Judging from how you responded it seems that I've struck a nerve. Happy now?Ok lang yan. Some societies consider Incest ok. Lipat ka doon. Di mo lang ma act out yung fantasy mo kasi taboo.
You stooping this low means that I've probably won this little debate. I expected better.
Alfred Kinsey is alright with me. What we know about human female orgasm is due to his research.He may have dabbled with research on female sexuality, but by no means was he an expert or had a very profound impact on the study. Just ask Ernst Grafenberg.
Totoo naman sinabi nila. Puwede naman maging genuine, loving relationship ang ganoon. Nandidiri ka lang kaya di mo matanggap. Ayaw mo ng ganyan, pero ok lang sa iyo incest fantasy. lol Ok lang yan, lahat ng tao may "quirks".Comparing a fantasy with having actual sexual relations with adolescents/children is truly idiotic. So, you think pederasty/pedophilia is alright?
Yes, it was considered "normal" noon, before someone with common sense & decency stood up & said "Hey, don't you think it's wrong & disgusting for old geezers to have sexual relations with adolescents?" Kaya nga hindi na pina-practice ngayon kasi na-realize ng mga Greeks na mali.Well, at least hindi mo na kailangang aminin na "normal" rin ang tingin mo sa pederasty because you've impled that since Plato is doing it, why can't we too?E kung normal sa society nila yun, ano magagawa mo? Go Taliban on them? Kultura nila yun e.
Why am I not surprised?
I didn't say it was bad. I'm ok with Da Vinci or Shakespeare being gay too. Or Benjamin Franklin banging old wh0res. Doesn't exactly diminish what they have done.True. Saan ko ba sinabi sa thread na ito na walang nagagawang mabuti ang mga bading? I'm a big Queen & Judas Priest fan, for chrissakes.
Sure, anything to spice up the sex act. Put on a condom. Bring your leather, whips & ballgags too. Pagbali-baligtarin mo man ang mundo, nature's ultimate purpose for sex & being attracted to the opposite sex is for procreation. Bonus lang yung pleasure when doing the act. Being sexually attracted to one's own sex is already a deviation.
Have I told you that aside from incest, sometimes I also fantasize about killing people who annoy me at work? That's right, it's fantasy & imagination. And what the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand?
He may have dabbled with research on female sexuality, but by no means was he an expert or had a very profound impact on the study. Just ask Ernst Grafenberg.
Comparing a fantasy with having actual sexual relations with adolescents/children is truly idiotic. So, you think pederasty/pedophilia is alright?
Yes, it was considered "normal" noon, before someone with common sense & decency stood up & said "Hey, don't you think it's wrong & disgusting for old geezers to have sexual relations with adolescents?" Kaya nga hindi na pina-practice ngayon kasi na-realize ng mga Greeks na mali.
True. Saan ko ba sinabi sa thread na ito na walang nagagawang mabuti ang mga bading? I'm a big Queen & Judas Priest fan, for chrissakes.
But it's still heterosexual sex. Saan ang deviation dun?Sure, anything to spice up the sex act. Put on a condom. Bring your leather, whips & ballgags too. Pagbali-baligtarin mo man ang mundo, nature's ultimate purpose for sex & being attracted to the opposite sex is for procreation. Bonus lang yung pleasure when doing the act. Being sexually attracted to one's own sex is already a deviation.E deviation din naman lahat yan sa "procreation"! LOL di naman dapat penis sa puwet. Di naman yan mag aasure ng procreation. Pag unnatural sexual act ng straight ok lang, pero pag homo sex deviation na. hahaha double standard?
What is this inherent design you are talking about? Di mo ba alam na ang homosexuality gives more survival chances for the straights? Kung nature lang paguusapan, positive variation ang homosexuality. Species altruism.If you consider the altruism as not being able to produce any offspring, then should the same thing be said about zoophiliacs & yung may mga object sexuality? Since both of those are considered sexual deviancies, do you agree then that homosexuality is also a sexual deviation?
Probably. Case-to-case basis lang siguro. Besides, there is still a world of difference between just fantasizing & acting out your fantasies. Sino ba sa atin ang hindi nagpantasya kahit minsan sa buhay nila?Have I told you that aside from incest, sometimes I also fantasize about killing people who annoy me at work? That's right, it's fantasy & imagination. And what the hell does this have to do with the topic at hand?If it was alright to kill, you probably would have done it too.
What relevance? Sabi mo sila Kinsey di mapagkakatiwalaan because of their views on sex that we consider taboo. E lahat naman ng tao may positive view to what we consider taboo. What makes them different? Kung sound naman ang science bakit hindi yun ang bigyan ng importansya kahit marami pang asawa ang tao?LOL it's really funny how science that you agree with is OK, but easily dismiss the science you don't agree with. Sino ngayon sa atin ang may double standard?
Syempre iba view nila sa sex dahil mas marami sila alam doon kaysa sa karaniwang tao na maraming alam na taboo. Sex researchers sila.And these "deviant sexual fantasies" of theirs will never make their research/studies biased towards it, right? Not even the slightest? Wow, that would be unethical. I mean, they're scientists, right? Scientists should always be objective, right?
Katulad mo na may deviant sexual fantasy, meron din sila. But that doesn't affect the science or the coherence of their thought.
Still, he was not an authority nor a leading expert. Siyempre kasama yan sa trabaho niya sexual researcher siya e.He may have dabbled with research on female sexuality, but by no means was he an expert or had a very profound impact on the study. Just ask Ernst Grafenberg.Dabbled? hahaha he observed women having orgasm and studied female multiple orgasms. While Mr. G. Spot sure had an impact, Kinsey surely didn't dabble.
Let me get this straight, you think that pederasty/pedophilia is not right because you were conditioned to view it negatively & not because it's just plain wrong & immoral? This speaks A LOT about your beliefs & value system.So, you think pederasty/pedophilia is alright?No. I'm conditioned to view it negatively because of how i grew up and the society that surrounds me. But I'm not discounting the fact that it would be alright with other people especially with other cultures.
Bakit hindi nila binalik ulit considering na ilang centuries na naging parte ng "culture" nila yun? Bakit yung ilang aspects ng culture nila ginagawa pa rin hanggang ngayon pero ang pederasty hindi na? Oh yeah that's right, they found it appalling so they enacted age of consent laws.Yes, it was considered "normal" noon, before someone with common sense & decency stood up & said "Hey, don't you think it's wrong & disgusting for old geezers to have sexual relations with adolescents?" Kaya nga hindi na pina-practice ngayon kasi na-realize ng mga Greeks na mali.Hindi. Nalaos lang yung practice. Kahit sa post Greek Rome at Alexandria meron pa rin e, until that civilization died when Byzantine were conquered by Muslims then Rome dissolved and became pre dominantly Christian. Nobody stood up and took notice lol. Napalitan lang ng ibang practice like Male's taking pre adolescent or adolescent wives in the Muslim setting.
But it's still heterosexual sex. Saan ang deviation dun?
If you consider the altruism as not being able to produce any offspring, then should the same thing be said about zoophiliacs & yung may mga object sexuality?
Since both of those are considered sexual deviancies, do you agree then that homosexuality is also a sexual deviation?
If it was alright to kill, you probably would have done it too.
Probably. Case-to-case basis lang siguro. Besides, there is still a world of difference between just fantasizing & acting out your fantasies. Sino ba sa atin ang hindi nagpantasya kahit minsan sa buhay nila?
LOL it's really funny how science that you agree with is OK, but easily dismiss the science you don't agree with. Sino ngayon sa atin ang may double standard?
And these "deviant sexual fantasies" of theirs will never make their research/studies biased towards it, right? Not even the slightest? Wow, that would be unethical. I mean, they're scientists, right? Scientists should always be objective, right?
Let me get this straight, you think that pederasty/pedophilia is not right because you were conditioned to view it negatively & not because it's just plain wrong & immoral? This speaks A LOT about your beliefs & value system.
Bakit hindi nila binalik ulit considering na ilang centuries na naging parte ng "culture" nila yun? Bakit yung ilang aspects ng culture nila ginagawa pa rin hanggang ngayon pero ang pederasty hindi na? Oh yeah that's right, they found it appalling so they enacted age of consent laws.
Homosexuals can function well, adapt and adjust in society same as the straights. Zoophiliacs and people with object sexuality are usually diagnosed that they can't. Their sexual behavior debilitates their social functioning.Nope, zoophiles are also like normal people & are also well-adjusted to society. Zoophilia is more common than you think & they also compare themselves & their struggles to that of the gay movement. Just like gays, zoophiles think that having sex with animals is "normal" & whoever says otherwise is an ignorant, discriminating bigot. Kaya nga yung mga zoophile groups gustong i-overturn ang sodomy laws sa ibang states kasi kasama dun ang pakikipagsex sa hayop. Just use your Google-fu para maghanap ng mga popular na bestiality/zoophilia sites kung gusto mo ng add'l info.
Ano double standard diyan? Ano dinismiss ko? LOL Sobrang objective na nga ang sinabi kasi kahit may iba pa siya views sa akin, ang sabi ko ang mahalaga ay sound science.Remember this little exchange?
Tapos ikaw pa itong nagsabi na:Ganun din e. Lifestyle lang iniiba nila. Wala naman sila sinabi na completely straight na or "cured" yung mga patients nila.Kung binasa mo yung link mo na sinasabi ng ex president ng APA na homosexuals can change. Lagi niya sinasabi "homosexual lifestyle". Yun ang binabago niya. Outside behavior lang. Wala siyang sinabi na puwede maging straight ang isang homosexual.Hindi ba if you're no longer living the homosexual lifestyle, ibig sabihin nun hindi ka na bading? You complicate even the simplest of statements. Ayaw mo kay Dr. Nicholas Cummings? How about Dr. Robert Spitzer? He's another guy involved with declassifying homosexuality from the DSM & he also says that homosexuality can be cured (http://www.dijg.de/english/homosexuality-reality-of-change/). Look up PFOX. The only people who balk at the notion of homosexuals being cured are the LGBT groups themselves (uh, including you na rin).
Syempre iba view nila sa sex dahil mas marami sila alam doon kaysa sa karaniwang tao na maraming alam na taboo. Sex researchers sila.Tsk-tsk. Kung hindi double standard ang tawag mo diyan, ewan ko kung ano.
Sure there's scientific review, pero motivation pa lang ng research questionable na. Paano kung yung magrereview ng research niya karamihan e katulad niya ring mga closet pederasts/pedophiles?
You mentioned bias. That is true. There will always be bias. Kaya nga may scientific consensus at peer review. Whatever Kinsey finds out, that doesn't stay with Kinsey. He has to always submit to scientific peer review. Kaya nga may mga instances na kinorrect yung samples niya ng harvard o ng sweden.
Peer reviews maintain the objectivity.
E kung tama at maganda sa kanila yun? Ano magagawa natin? What is wrong and immoral is just a point of view and arbitrary.LOL parang sinabi mo ring ayaw mo sa slavery kasi hindi ito kasing cost-effective ng paggamit ng harvesting machines sa pag-ani, at hindi sa dahilang dapat lahat ng tao ay malaya. Do you get what I'm saying here?
I don't agree with pedophilia because i think children should have the time to play and experience childhood. Pero si mohammad and his society would think that consummating marriage with a 9 year old kid is right as well. Mali sa akin. Tama sa kanila. Sinong tama? Sinong mali? Sino may moral ascendancy to impose to another?
Kung naiba yung victors ng history, iba din magiging morality natin ngayon. Not because somebody thinks it is not right, may nanalo lang at may na conquer na mas nakakarami.What if you were living in ancient times & talamak ang pagkakaroon ng mga boylet na menor de edad. Alam mong mali kasi nga wala pang sariling isip ang mga bata at sinasamantala lang sila ng matatanda, would you make a stand to start reforms? Somehow I doubt that. Akala ko pa man din progressive ka.
Nope, zoophiles are also like normal people & are also well-adjusted to society. Zoophilia is more common than you think & they also compare themselves & their struggles to that of the gay movement. Just like gays, zoophiles think that having sex with animals is "normal" & whoever says otherwise is an ignorant, discriminating bigot. Kaya nga yung mga zoophile groups gustong i-overturn ang sodomy laws sa ibang states kasi kasama dun ang pakikipagsex sa hayop. Just use your Google-fu para maghanap ng mga popular na bestiality/zoophilia sites kung gusto mo ng add'l info.
So again, kung ang altruism ng homosexuality ay ang hindi pagkakaroon ng anak, can the same be said with zoophilia?
Kung oo, does it also mean that homosexuality, like zoophilia, is also sexual deviancy resulting in an altruism?
Remember this little exchange?Hindi ba if you're no longer living the homosexual lifestyle, ibig sabihin nun hindi ka na bading? You complicate even the simplest of statements. Ayaw mo kay Dr. Nicholas Cummings? How about Dr. Robert Spitzer? He's another guy involved with declassifying homosexuality from the DSM & he also says that homosexuality can be cured (http://www.dijg.de/english/homosexuality-reality-of-change/). Look up PFOX. The only people who balk at the notion of homosexuals being cured are the LGBT groups themselves (uh, including you na rin).
Ganun din e. Lifestyle lang iniiba nila. Wala naman sila sinabi na completely straight na or "cured" yung mga patients nila.
Tapos ikaw pa itong nagsabi na:Tsk-tsk. Kung hindi double standard ang tawag mo diyan, ewan ko kung ano.
Sure there's scientific review, pero motivation pa lang ng research questionable na. Paano kung yung magrereview ng research niya karamihan e katulad niya ring mga closet pederasts/pedophiles?
LOL parang sinabi mo ring ayaw mo sa slavery kasi hindi ito kasing cost-effective ng paggamit ng harvesting machines sa pag-ani, at hindi sa dahilang dapat lahat ng tao ay malaya. Do you get what I'm saying here?
What if you were living in ancient times & talamak ang pagkakaroon ng mga boylet na menor de edad. Alam mong mali kasi nga wala pang sariling isip ang mga bata at sinasamantala lang sila ng matatanda, would you make a stand to start reforms? Somehow I doubt that. Akala ko pa man din progressive ka.
Buhayin ko lang for entertainment purposes.... nanahimik e
So what are the actual medical or biological conditions one must possess to identify as a homosexual? If the act alone doesn't define homosexuality and if people are predisposed to it, what triggers them to identify as homosexuals? What medical/biological instances causes them to identify as homosexuals?
I hope the answer is not as vague as "there are pre-natal conditions that we are still not sure of, but we can believe that they are because we've done some tests and in our opinion there's a chance we're close" or "we believe its the size of a persons brain... as a certain number of homosexuals seem to have the same size/ratios although some (sige na nga just as many) of them have similar brain size/ratios to heterosexual persons"
I can't find anything on google... tamad na ako after the first 2 pages. I mean if it were really a breakthrough discovery like "the earth is round" it should be plastered on first page results.