What is your stand about Homosexuality?

[spetsnaz1123]

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.

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.

Regarding putting them gays on an island and bombing them, that's definitely not my thing. As I said, they do deserve respect and love from others, and I will respect them as long as they are not doing immoral things in front of me and my family.

[charmonium]

intermission numbers muna guys (and gays):

[Mardk]

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).

BTT : I'm with boltthrower that homosexuality is natural. No reason to discriminate decent people who have different sexual preferences.

[Bolt Thrower]

Oi, we've only been around for 250,000 years. And that's the maximum estimate. But yeah, your point still stands.

hahahaha yes i know. i was merely exaggerating to get to my point. since he was referring to evolution, i was alluding  to our evolutionary cousins i referred to as "other species" who also have a homosexual population yet have evolved to branch out to hominids. I was not just referring to modern subgenus homo sapiens sapiens.  Interesting to note, since chimps are the "most gay" of our cousins,  Australopithecines also have a homosexual population similar to chimps. That's like what? 3 million years worth give or take of successful evolutionary transition despite having gays in ther midst.   

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).

I don't care about that on some level. It is THEIR stand on homosexuality, and  ill defend their right to say it. But I do hope that they as so much have an effort to understand how human sexuality really is. it is not binary and there are different colors in the gender spectrum alone and each healthy and normal as the next. if i am asked here to clarify something or detail the mechanics of how homosexuality really is, then id be glad to waste my time and give them some 101. i just hope they follow up. there are loads of information over the net and outside of it and it would be a waste of gray matter if one doesn't verify his dogmatic or old beliefs of homosexuality against the evidence existing and documented for them.

if they won't do it for themselves, at least do it for their family members or friends who are LGBT. It is a shame for humanity to continue on beating their children, bullying them in schools, giving them unnecessary hormone exposure or putting them in abusive and religiously motivated, corrective psycho therapy because they understand homosexuality as an abnormality or a vile infection.

Mengele already did that to gays in Auschwitz.

[pixelwise]

I don't think morality or the lack thereof has anything to do with homosexuality. Madami din namang malalandi at haliparot na straights ah. At marami din namang conservative and monogamous gays. Ang problema, mas maraming gays na masyadong visible ang kalandian. Pinangangalandakan ang kalandian nila. I can't blame them. Flamboyance is their nature (many of them), kaya nga na-apply sa kanila yung word na "gay". Pero sana mag-evolve na ang mga hinayupak na to at bawas-bawasan na ang kanilang ka-KSP-han.

Notice that the bible does not only condemn homosexual sex but also even just being effeminate. Lalakeng mahinhin ka ba? You shall not inherit the kingdom of god dahil unrighteous ka. Again, my stand is, just like the bible's leniency on rape, its bigotry against homosexuality is culture-based. Culture gets outdated but universal truths like love and understanding do not. One would think after 2,000 years of NT teaching love would have already prevailed over ancient cultural mentality. We're not quite there yet.

I don't see how homosexuality is a psychological disease, but bigotry certainly is.

[Bolt Thrower]

Annoying and loud people irritate me too. Vice Ganda kills my day not because he is gay and so out there. Vice annoys me as much as Kris Aquino does. So yeah, I'd have to agree on that. Iba iba din naman ugali ng mga LGBT same as iba iba din pagka epal ng mga straight. Yung loud at "parlor gay" in local parlance lang ang napapansin kasi which is not really a majority in their diverse community. 

[the_manila.guitarexchange]

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 

Now you tell us, how do you gauge what is "Immoral" and what is not?

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.

[MrGobots]

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.

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_manila.guitarexchange]

We cant educate a fool. No matter what you do with it. Its ENOUGH!! 

Well dharzfreeman, at least now you know how most of us here feel about you 

[gandydancer123]

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! nice insights! I really can relate on how you see things..

[spetsnaz1123]

... 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.

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.

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? Tapos pakisagot na rin yung original mong tanong, thanks.

[Bolt Thrower]

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. Or maybe too cautious, you are left behind and the world keeps moving on with what it already knows.

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.   
 

[treblinkalovescene]

Great, someone had to open THIS can of worms. Seriously people, think what you want and take that home but I really really invite you to come and check out what the LGBT community is like beneath the surface. Draw your conclusions from there. I've spent years with close ties to the gay scene and all I saw was a group of people who live and love as others do. The most visible facet of the country's persona resides in the oft-misunderstood "bakla" identity. May mga promiscuous, may mga perpetually lovelorn, may prudes, may faithful, may progressive/radical, may top, bottom, flexi, trippers. Diverse ang community. Microcosm lang naman yan ng society natin as a whole.

Not saying anything that hasn't been said before but I suggest we all just drop this. I highly doubt any of you would get it unless you've ever gone gay. Buti sana kung may insight from actual gay people but instead of getting a clearer picture of gay life here as it is, it's all one-sided intellectual fencing.

That, and gay people are not to be excused from being annoying. Leche.

[MrGobots]

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.

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.   
 

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?

Evidences are not required to agree with my views. In fact, evidences make up my views that is the reason for my prudence.

When you "a$$ume" you make an a$$ out of u and me. You can not (well apparently you did, so you should not)  assume anything as evidence as proof of something if it does not lead to fact. Otherwise evidence becomes merely a suggestion. Not that I dont like to look at the evidence,  but the evidence presented are just not that definitive.

And as proven again, your assumptions of me and my upbringing are very far off. Proving your skills in assessment of facts feeble.

When you mature enough and gathered enough experience, you will know why exercising caution is always wise and not just borne from fear.

[Bolt Thrower]

The only definitively proven "cause" of homosexuality is choice.

Oh well. We have completed a circle. Good luck with evidence.

[MrGobots]

Oh well. We have completed a circle. Good luck with evidence.

I rely on facts, takes out the guess work. You should try it.

[Santo Muerte]

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?

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.

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.

[MrGobots]

or on the other hand, I'd like to come up with my own set of gender terms to take their definitions a bit further! Kung ganun lang din pala.

Duosexual - this gender identifies as both male and female biological genders at the same time and romantically involves "themselves" only with 2 or more partners at the same time. This gender preference does not display any sexual preference or desire on a single partner nor does the person prefer being a single gender at a time. This gender may also identify as 2 females or 2 males or 2 homosexuals with either male or female genitalia.

Rasta-sexual - this gender identifies as any gender of preference only when when reggae music is played. other times the person assumes gender corresponding to genitalia

Ganja-sexual - this gender identifies as any gender of preference only when under sufficient influence of cannabis. other times the person assumes gender corresponding to genitalia

[trxter41]

NBA player jason collins just admitted he was gay. yep, you read that right. we have a gay NBA player folks. i have been pondering that question for some time why in the NBA's 67 years of existence why there is no gay NBA player considering that a lot of men have played the game profesionally. the fact that nobody during that span has admitted to being openly gay, beats statistics. i say it is about time someone came open with it in the NBA. Jason Collins is the first, more are sure to follow.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/29/sport/collins-gay/?hpt=hp_t1

[Bolt Thrower]

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.

Homosexuals exist. Are we extinct? Did it lessen our chances of survival?

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.

what agenda could that be? people identifying as homosexuals is normal. and science doesn't discount that. look it up.

Where's your citation then? This concept of a more superior gay seed is just too preposterous for me to spend time Googling it.

where is it i said that the gay seed is superior? i merely said that gays and lesbians engage in artificial insemination. artificial insemination has a good chance of producing twins.
 

Most of the time it's environmental, or else homosexuality will not be treatable. Yes, there are medical establishments which treat homosexuality (gasp!).

Keep telling that to yourself.

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

(here are your facts. be sure to check the literature and verify them for yourself. As Reagan once said--- Trust but verify.)

Treat homosexuality? With what? Pathology? With the old leaning that homosexuality as a disease? Are we still in the 1960's? How do you know they are conclusively treated and not just retreated to the closet because of societal pressure and to avoid further persecution? And as far as I know that is the case.

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?

Sure. Indulge yourself. You are not alone in that thinking.

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'm just after the evidence. Don't shoot the messenger.

I rely on facts, takes out the guess work. You should try it.

Where's the prudence? Where's the caution?

[MrGobots]

Where's the prudence? Where's the caution?

Here. Or did you just read the first paragraph that obviously jumped to conclusions?

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.

Fact is fact when fact is fact. Otherwise... well, you know the drill.

[Bolt Thrower]

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.

Quoted...they have yet to conclude if the brain size is a consequence or a source of sexual orientation. yes? they are born with that brain size ratio, they just didnt conclude if you are gay because of your brain size (pre natal) or your brain size made you pre disposed to being gay (post natal). it is just a question did the brain size cause it or did it affect it? Just either of those two.

And either way it is hardwired to humans and the findings still don't support the view that sexual orientation indeed is a choice. 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.

The only definitively proven "cause" of homosexuality is choice.

And again, good luck with your evidence.

[Santo Muerte]

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.

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.

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.

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.

In case you're not aware, the gay lobby group in the US is one of the most powerful & most influental groups in the country. Malaki ang impluwensya nila pagdating sa politics, sa media at kung saan-saan pa at wala silang kapaguran na i-push ang kanilang agenda. To give you some more information regarding this, punta lang kayo sa Concerned Women For America website: www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=14696&department=CFI&categoryid=family

A quote from the site:

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.

At isa pa. Even if you remove the sentence with "God" on it, their agenda is still clear:

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?

[Bolt Thrower]

Yung gumawa ng study secular at scientific.  Bakit di mo hanapin yung source nung study. Nakalagay naman sa references. Malamang dun gagawin sa gender descriminationfree states ang study kasi doon marami out na [pichapie] na willing maging public sample. 

The third link is an LGBT pro website but has valid research and listed their references in detail. LGBT agenda aside, that doesn't discount the study kung galing sa legitimate scientific study ang source. Ano magagawa mo? E yung sensya nasa side nila. E yung psition niyo na Homosexuality is a choice. Wala naman ako mahanap na legit study at proof na makakapagbigay lakas sa paniniwalang yan. napag iwanan na ng panahon. lumang tugtugin na.


At as if naman yung CWA, wala din kinikilingan at unbiased din. E mga right wing republican white mga yan. Same people who want to take out Evolution in the midwest educational curriculum. They smear each other, what makes them more trustworthy? I suggest you look at scientific and medical sources like I did.

Dami pa studies diyan hanap hanap ka pa.  Suwerte mo kung may mahanap ka na credible medical o scientific source na sasabihin sa iyo na sexual orientation is a choice. Yung third link ko dami list ng studies. Isa isahin mo para masaya. 

Ayaw mo galing sa liberal State sa US yung literature? Eto galing Illinois.

http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/CACE-Print-Resources/~/media/Files/Centers-and-Institutes/CACE/articles/Sexual%20Orientation%20and%20Reason%20%201-9-20122.pdf

How about something from the APA:

http://www.csun.edu/~psp/handouts/APA%20on%20Sexual%20Orientation.pdf

Review mo din yung related literature at bibliography ah.


Good luck din sa iyo, ser. Game face on ka na. Madami ka pa kailangan basahin.

[Bolt Thrower]

O, para hindi masyado seryoso, baka trip mo ng cartoons?

feature=player_embedded

Pero baka sabihin mo ginawa lang ng gay sympathizer yan kaya inaccurate. Pero ano ba mawawala sa iyo kung i-double check mo yung proof at studies na sinasabi nila sa video? Ako nga binabato ako dito ng creationist links pag evolution ang usapan pero binabasa ko pa rin yung mga study nila at verify.

Kape kape muna.