What is your stand about Homosexuality?

[the_manila.guitarexchange]

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

No worries about the above. No one misinterpreted that.
You were obviously in your "yabang mode" then, and you're trying to clean up your shi.t now

Ayos naman ang balitaktakan dito basta respeto lang sa isa't isa.

Respeto?
Mockery have been hurled throughout this thread from the very start, and you talk about respect? 
Mag Bait-baitan ba pre?

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?"

I asked you the question, “How do you gauge what is immoral and what is not?” because between the two of us, you are the “religious “one, and you are also the one who kept pertaining to religion, morals, morality and immorality.

I on the other hand, do not belong to a “religious group”, and I explicity stated that

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.

Those being said, I am not bound by the context of “Morality as per you definition of it” .

Nagtataka din ako sayo kung bakit vague pa rin sayo yung sagot ko samantalang napaka 'in your face' na nga nun.

Yes it is unfortunately true that, I find your answer rather "bland" and "vague".
And as I said, it obviously borders within "safe zone"...safe from questions or scrutiny.
You merely claimed and stated that, what is Immoral to your “god”, is immoral to you,

Which makes me ask the question, “How do you know what is immoral to God?”

Would you care to enlighten me?
… Or would you rather cower in your “safe zone”?

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?

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.

[spetsnaz1123]

Those being said, I am not bound by the context of “Morality as per you definition of it” .
[/b]

So how you define it nga?

Which makes me ask the question, “How do you know what is immoral to God?” 

I thought you have read the Bible since your childhood? andun lang naman yung sagot sa tanong mo e.

… 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.

OK I guess I am in 'big trouble' now (my legs are trembling while im in my safe zone  ), so who is your 'god'?

[MrGobots]

And again, good luck with your evidence.

Again the logic escapes you, no?

And I thought you had a good grasp of the enormous amount of definitions you have accepted of homosexuality. 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.

[Bolt Thrower]

Again the logic escapes you, no?

And it is obvious the science eludes you.

Sexual activity between persons of the same sex is one of the definitions of homosexuality.

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. 

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.

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.

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 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.

Good luck with the antiquated beliefs you regard as true.
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.

[the_manila.guitarexchange]

So how you define it nga?

Nakakabitin pag hindi nasagot ng buo yung tanong di ba?
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

I thought you have read the Bible since your childhood? andun lang naman yung sagot sa tanong mo e.

^^^^ 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. 

so who is your 'god'?

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.

OK I guess I am in 'big trouble' now (my legs are trembling while im in my safe zone  )

They say, “Jokes are half meant”




 

[spetsnaz1123]

Nakakabitin pag hindi nasagot ng buo yung tanong di ba?
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.

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.

Ano nga ba yung question mo na hindi ko sinagot?

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.

Dodging the question? hehehe ako? tingnan mo nga yang mga post mo kung sino yung umiilag sa atin. Ikaw lang yata hindi makaintindi eh o baka nagtatanga-tangahan ka lang. Akala ko ba you were reading the Bible since your childhood, kung totoo yang pinagsasabi mo dapat alam mo nang hanapin kung saan sa Bible yung tinatanong mo. Gusto mo ba isa-isahin ko pa sayo yung mga verse sa Bible na nagbabanggit ng immoralidad?

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. 

Nakakatawa naman to, e ano ba yung question mo hindi ko sinagot? Blurred? tingnan mo nga yung pinagsasabi mo kung sino ang blurred sa atin...

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 are saying that your God is such which is good and it seems that you are a very spiritual person but then you are also saying

You Religious people are so FULL OF [gooey brown stuff].

I'LL BE SEEING YOU IN HELL.

Hindi ba contradicting? Sino ba talaga 'god' mo?

Hay, nakakapagod na 

[the_manila.guitarexchange]

^^  ^^^
Nakakatawa ka na pre

Again, Hindi ka talaga makasagot ng derecho.

Pinaiikot mo lang ang tanong dahil hindi mo masagot

I asked you a question, tapos Sasabihin mo sakin hanapin ko sa bible?

You still give blurred answers, or point to “this or that”, or redirect the question back to the one who asked you.

Again the pattern is tremendously obvious.


Ang sabi mo, Iisa-isahin mo sakin yung "verse sa Bible na nagbabanggit ng immoralidad?"

Eh di inamin mo narin that you are one of those people na kung magsalita about the bible ay para bang absolute sila  na tama sila at hindi ka pwedeng magkamali.....asan ang humility dun?


At pinatunayan mo na rin na you are one of those people na ginagamit ang bible para manghusga ng kapwa


And again,you have proven that you can only comprehend with the existence of God because of religion.


If you cannot comprehend with the existence of God in the absence of Religion,...that's your problem..



And TRUE. THE GOD THAT I KNOW IS ALL GOOD.


Pero ako,... I'M NOT.

So most likely, I"LL BE SEING YOU IN HELL.

[spetsnaz1123]

^what a hopeless case  ...a very confused individual, kawawa naman. Simpleng sagot sa simpleng tanong nya di pa rin maintindihan tsk tsk tsk.

o sige tigilan na natin ito, wala namang magandang patutunguhan ito e.

[dharzfreeman]

Sabi ko na sayo eh... ENOUGH !! 

[Santo Muerte]

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.

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:

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.

You can download the APA 's DSM II revision here: 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":

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!’”

This is the same Dr. Frank Kameny that wanted to decriminalize sodomy: 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

Next up, the "Born Gay" theory. Simon LeVay a neurobiologist & a self-professed gay man, said this after conducting an inconclusive hypothalamus study:

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

source: http://discovermagazine.com/1994/mar/sexandthebrain346#.UYCC77VT6So

Or how about Richard Pillard's Twin study, who btw is also a gay man:

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

Or how about the X Chromosome study from another gay man, Dean Hamer:

...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 gay

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

Oops! There goes your "born gay" argument running out the door.

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!

[Bolt Thrower]

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

Ooooops. The Position Paper is RETIRED. Didn't you read the head line? HAHAHAHAHA



The current scientific consensus is that it is normal. Hindi lang sa APA. Have you read my links? And seryoso you want to quote about homosexual studies from the 70's? Wow. Kinakalawang na yung hammer of science mo. 

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

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

Hindi dahil may political pressure, mali na yung science behind it. May proof naman sila at na-maintain naman yung view sa ibang disciplines ng science hindi lang sa psychology. The Vatican was politically forced to revise their position on stem cell treatment, AIDS and even Galileo. Di dahil na pressure ng politics, mali na agad yung findings.

E kung may solid scientific foundation naman, ano mali doon? Stick with the evidence---kaya ang mga orgs like APA laging may Citation and Bibliography. Mga homophobics at right wing republicans na lang umiiyak sa pagtanggal sa APA ng Homosexuality is a sickness. Di naman na issue yan sa scientific community dahil may proof naman to back it up na homosexuality is indeed a normal human behavior.

I even quoted the most recent APA position with my last reply. Di mo rin binasa malamang.

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

Normal. Normal. Normal.

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

Or how about Richard Pillard's Twin study, who btw is also a gay man:
source: 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

Oops! There goes your "born gay" argument running out the door.

Nobody here said that anyone is born gay. Kahit ako di ko sinabi yun. Being homosexual is a product of biological, mental and environmental factors. Tamad ka na mag google. Tamad ka pa magbasa.

BTW, parang di mo binasa mga links mo.

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.

E yan di sinasabi ko 3 pages back e.  YUng dalawa mong links naka bibliography na sa isa kong link so nabasa ko na rin yan. Wala naman bago. Sinasabi nila lahat na being homosexual is nature and nurture---like what I always said.

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!

1. False, you have antiquated evidence. 40 years ago na yun.
2. Being homosexual is a product of biological, mental and environmental factors. Pre disposed, not born that way.

It is fun. Reading is more fun.
Here's a token. Try again. Buy a new science hammer, Vigo.

[pixelwise]

[MrGobots]

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.

Similarly, two bisexuals or transexuals having hetero sex don't cause them to be straight. They are still bi or trans.

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.

Good luck with the antiquated beliefs you regard as true.
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.

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.

I'm just waiting to see where your beliefs will take you. May the odds be forever in your favor.

[Santo Muerte]

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.

[Bolt Thrower]

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.

The question is did that homosexual act cause them to be homosexual? similarly, does heterosexual sex cause a homosexual to be heterosexual?
Of course not.

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.

Rape is sex done without consent. It's still sex.

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.

Whining about me won't produce any evidence that would support this:

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

[Bolt Thrower]

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.

Dude, 3 things...

1. I find it a little curious that while you don't trust the APA and the DSM, you keep on quoting them. Kung gusto mo ibang reference may ICD-10 ng World Health Organization. LAhat yan Homosexuality is normal ang sinasabi.
How about a historical perspective?
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
2. It is a position paper for the DSM 2 that defines the Sexual Orientation Disorder. The APA retires documents like these when they abandon a previous position in light of evidence or another DSM is available.
3. I don't have to provide you an updated DSM 2. Nasa DSM 4 na tayo. May lalabas na DSM 5 this May. Mula 3 hanggang 5, normal ang homosexuality.The Sexual Orientation FAQ i just posted is from the APA. Kung nakakatamad mag back read, tulungan na kita.
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

 

[MrGobots]

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.

or are you just twisting my words again to suit your defense? and sticking to it rather stiff, as you seem to think its your 1 up in this.
Hay... comprehension Einstein. I've explained this a few posts back.

Whining is different from calling out the obvious.

[Bolt Thrower]

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?

[spetsnaz1123]

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

[pixelwise]

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?

[Bolt Thrower]

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.

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?

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.

 

[pixelwise]

This guy said he can

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/03/20/12/can-one-overcome-homosexuality-ex-comedian-says-yes

nakita ko to si tonette macho years ago. if i remember correctly sa congregation ni benny abante. [pichapie] pa rin eh. nililito nya lang ang maraming tao.

[spetsnaz1123]

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 disorders that do not have a cure...but can be controlled by whatever therapy may apply or just by self-control.

[Bolt Thrower]

Perhaps it is like some tormenting psychological disorder that do not have a cure...but can be controlled by whatever therapy may apply.

debatable e. since homsexuality is not just a psychological matter, changing the behavior through therapy is just a superficial change. noong 70s-80s may hormone treatment din, kaso nag fail lang. lumalim lang boses nila pero di naman sila naging straight. in the 90s there was hypno therapy. pero once the subject breaks the suggestion barrier, ganon pa rin. regarding tonette, one way to know if he the change is true is if his brain is tested to be still responding to homosexual stimuli. sadly, advanced neuroscience tools are not available here.   

despite my doubt that he just turned straight. i hope that guy is happier now, though. kung saan siya masaya.   

[MrGobots]

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?

Homosexuality is the state of being homosexual, true. But it is also defined as erotic activity with another of the same sex, which includes  romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual activity. With all this posing on being precise with the modern definitions, the use of the basic definitions seem to escape your grasp.

Try and keep up:

> 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.

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?

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"