What is your stand about Homosexuality?

[MrGobots]

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.

so the statements:

Homosexuality is exclusive to homosexuals.
Homosexual sex is not homosexuality unless it involves homosexuals.

are correct?

Paki-confirm na lang so we know exactly what the doctrines you are trying to preach are.

[Bolt Thrower]

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.

[guitarwiz02]

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.

but some straight people can engage in same sex intercourse yet identify as straight.

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.

It's not that simple folks.

It is to me. Or shall I say, to a vast majority?

[fretboard]

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)

[guitarwiz02]

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)

Rape, of course, is a forceful act. Wala kang laban, most of the time sa ganun. And iba yung nang-rape (male) sa na-rape (male victim). But what Bolt was trying to imply is that, a man, who can willingly have sex with another man, after all,  can still be straight. Ask yourself, can you? If you can't, then why?

[fretboard]

^got your point

[guitarwiz02]

^got your point

Thanks.

[badfinger]

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.

[MrGobots]

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.

until what you believe in is actually true, well..... you can believe in it as fact all you want... you are entitled to hold your own religious beliefs, anyway. thats not outdated thinking, that's just common sense kicking in.

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.

[guitarwiz02]

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?

[MrGobots]

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?

"their" way of thinking? 

[guitarwiz02]

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?

"their" way of thinking? 

There's nothing new in that aspect, too.

[spetsnaz1123]

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?

[guitarwiz02]

just curious, how about those people doing it just for the money? gay or not?

Gay. I mean, there are other ways to earn. Resorting to such acts or means just to earn money is beyond me. Besides, if a certain male is in it for the money, why not look for a matrona instead?

but come to think of it, if they enjoy doing it (the deed) they gotta be gay...right?

Absolutely!

[Bolt Thrower]

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.

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.   

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.

But they exist. Find someone like that, and tell it to themselves, Baloney! Andami sex behavior research dito sa Pilipinas.   

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.

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

It's not that simple folks.

It is to me. Or shall I say, to a vast majority?

Yes. It seems THAT simple to a vast majority. Kita naman dito. Lalo na kung kulang sa info.

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.

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.

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.

Good luck on your sexual journey.

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?

same thing. they can either identify as straight or bisexual. many girls who go through high school lesbian encounters either identify as straight, bisexual or lesbian---regardless if they enjoyed the act or not. the possibilities are endless. human sexual behavior is an interesting point of study.

[guitarwiz02]

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.

Hundreds of scales that exist, yet, not one is accurate.

Second highlighted premise...not straight.

But they exist. Find someone like that, and tell it to themselves, Baloney! Andami sex behavior research dito sa Pilipinas.

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?

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

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.

Yes. It seems THAT simple to a vast majority. Kita naman dito. Lalo na kung kulang sa info.

Huwaw! Ang lagay e ikaw busog sa info? 

[Bolt Thrower]

Hundreds of scales that exist, yet, not one is accurate.

Paano mo nalaman? Na review mo na lahat ng 200+ scales? O tamad lang?

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.

Di mo pa nga sinusbukan maghanap, alam mo na agad. O tamad lang?

Huwaw! Ang lagay e ikaw busog sa info? 

Gutom pa.

[MrGobots]

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.

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.

[guitarwiz02]

Paano mo nalaman? Na review mo na lahat ng 200+ scales? O tamad lang?

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.

Di mo pa nga sinusbukan maghanap, alam mo na agad. O tamad lang?

Ikaw ba e nakahanap na? If yes, ipakilala mo sakin and ako ang kakausap. Bakit dadaanin pa sa pahirapan, di ba?

Gutom pa.

Mukhang gutom ka pa nga. Kulang na kulang pa e.

[Bolt Thrower]

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.

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.   

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.

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+?

Ikaw ba e nakahanap na? If yes, ipakilala mo sakin and ako ang kakausap. Bakit dadaanin pa sa pahirapan, di ba?

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!

Mukhang gutom ka pa nga. Kulang na kulang pa e.

For some people ignorance is bliss. O baka ayaw lang maghanap baka may ma discover na awkward sa sarili. Diyan naman nangagagaling ang homophobia. 

[MrGobots]

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 is already passe and inaccurate. no longer the "in" thing.  in proper discourse pretending 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 there are pre natal factors are 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?

[Bolt Thrower]

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 is already passe and inaccurate. no longer the "in" thing.  in proper discourse pretending 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 there are pre natal factors are 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?

If you have evidence that homosexuality is not, in any way, influenced in the womb, i'll gladly reconsider my position.

[MrGobots]

^ Evidence, shmevidence. There are more evident reasons using plain old common sense presented in this thread than in the evidence you revere and preach as fact from the people you worship. Your position is yours to enjoy all you want. But until you can definitively prove it is indeed fact and not "considered by my idols as fact" or "its cool to jump to a conclusion at this point, there's a chance we could be right" then you should rest with "your guess is as good as mine". Until then, homosexual sex is homosexuality, and people can choose homosexuality.

[Bolt Thrower]

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.

[prince22]

Commercial break!