Homosexuality is Against Nature
-
Yes please...Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Up yours you lah you bloody moron. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS HERE UNDERSTAND!!!!
I am starting to dislike this thread.
Contemplating closing thread in 24 hrs.
Ah.. If pika is added as a mod, could you help to close this thread too?Originally posted by CenturionMBT:Pika wan to be mod ahh....
speak nicely to fireice hor...
FI.... your call
Btw, I do think that Pika is objective enough to handle moderating duties..
In case this gets misinterpreted, I'm not saying that the current mods are not doing their duties... Thank you guys... -
can...i wun stop you.Originally posted by laurence82:Can start to +1 already?
-
thx for ur support.Originally posted by earthlings73:Ah.. If pika is added as a mod, could you help to close this thread too?
Btw, I do think that Pika is objective enough to handle moderating duties..
In case this gets misinterpreted, I'm not saying that the current mods are not doing their duties... Thank you guys... 
-
Need to send in resume?Originally posted by greengoblin:Speak to Fireice.
Jie. Take note pls. Thanks -
I declare im not a liar, and IF you'r the one making accusations, YOU have to furnish the evidence to justify your accusations. Barring that, u're making groundless accusations, something which u can be held accountable for. Im am stating in VERY CLEAR TERMS here, and I believe the mods know what Im talking about also. The ball is in your court now.Originally posted by PRP:So Heng doesn't intend to answer my question whether he is a liar.I believe he is.However,he is honest enuf not to lie that he is not. -
Dont refer to anal sex as "homosex", not only gays practice this. And its not the only form of sex that gays practice. The diseases that result from anal sex, can also be similary caused by "straight sex".
http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html
i wouldnt totally believe in the article but it does gives a logical estimate of the gay population at large, about 1-3%.
For the population to decline, there would need to be a more than 50% majority of people being gay, man and woman, and that all subsequent generations be more than 50% gay too. this is under the assumption that gays will never have children ( im referring to the lesbians and bisexuals here), and that every couple has at most 2 children.
Sounds ridiculous doesnt it? -
When you talk about nature, nothing can be wrong, it only when you talk about morals, then it is subjective. But even then, one man's meat is another man's poison.
-
Originally posted by earthlings73:
Did you not first claim in your earlier post of 17 September 2005 - 05:20 AM - the following statement ?
Quote from post by Atobe:
After four postings from ONE referenced article that reported on three ( ? ) cases of failure in corrective therapies, there still is nothing that indicate that one has to be a RELIGIOUS ZEALOT - in order to be successfully corrected as a HOMOSEXUAL.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I apologise for using the word "zealot" then. How about conservative Christians (as opposed to progressive Christians)? From the same article:
Hector Roybal, a 52-year-old financial consultant in Los Angeles,
spent four years in intensive treatment with Nicolosi, who considers
him to be cured. Roybal concurs, but said he still sometimes
struggles with sexual feelings for men, although he has remained
faithful to his wife, the only woman to whom he says he feels
physically attracted.
"I saw myself as someone who had a problem with homosexuality but was
meant to be straight," said Roybal, who, like Nicolosi, is a
conservative Catholic. "This is about making a choice."
And you failed to quote these paragraphs. Even Spitzer himself did not use his results to support a "cure" for gays.
While Nicolosi and others frequently cite the study as proof reparative therapy works, Spitzer said his results have been misrepresented. "It bothers me to be their knight in shining armor because on every social issue I totally disagree with the Christian right," he said.
"What they don't mention is that change is pretty rare," he added, noting that the subjects of his study were not representative of the general population because they were considerably more religious.
And Spitzer calls "totally absurd" the twin hypotheses that everyone is born straight and that homosexuality is a choice.
And how about addressing this issue directly. How you found any "cure" that not religiously motivated?
Hey, that's not even the intention of my post. My only intention is to show that the assumption of "homosexuality can be cured" and it's easily available is only... An assumption. CHOICES is the only group I know that offer "cure" for homosexuality. But you need to be a religious zealot before you can "might" succeed (as can be seen in the other article I've posted about exodus).
Are you now presenting these people to be 'conservative Christians' in place of 'Religious Zealots' - who have been cured, and are now wavering ?
Should one be surprised when Drug Addicts suffer relapse ?
Should one be surprised when a Petty Thief return to old habits ?
Should one be surprised when a Smoker salivate at the whiff of smoke ?
Commitment and determination will help one's moment of weakness.
Is it not part of Life that a HUMAN is always presented with CHOICES at each critical moment ?
HUMANS or HOMO SAPIENS have a more sophisticated mind that are more complex and developed than the sub-species, and would have enabled a higher level of thought process that allow HUMANS to judge and form HUMAN MORAL VALUES - which the sub-species do not seem to possess in the same capacity.
Can we not make the correct CHOICES to help ourselves ? -
Originally posted by earthlings73:
Where do you intend to lead us with this added clarification ?
Quote from post by Atobe:
So after so many pages in the closed thread, and on-going in this thread, the gap in our views is converging on some issues.
Unfortunately, all reference materials posted had indicated that the HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY is EXPOSED to the HIGHEST HEALTH RISK from the preferred dangerous lifestyle that will contract and spread AIDS/HIV.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This was my from my initial post:
AIDS in US started in gay community? Yes.
Is this gay the one and only person to bring AIDS to the world? No, there are multiple sources.
Is the very first case in HIV passed on by gay? No.
If you think that US is the world. I have nothing to say.
US started in 1980s. Prior to that, other countries have found something similar but did not know what's the syndrome all about. The syndrome has a scientific meaning only in the world after US discoveries. But that does not mean that HIV virus was spread from gays.
There are multiple sources, multiple conductors over the years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS
AIDS is thought to have originated in sub-Saharan Africa during the twentieth century
Two species of HIV infect humans: HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV-1 is more virulent and more easily transmitted. HIV-1 is the source of the majority of HIV infections throughout the world, while HIV-2 is less easily transmitted and is largely confined to West Africa. [1]
(my apologies for deleting the other paragraphs already posted, this is done only to save on length of this post)
In May 1983, doctors at the Institute Pasteur in France reported that they had isolated a new retrovirus from lymphoid ganglions that they believed was the cause of SIDA (Barre-Sinoussi et al., 1983). The virus was later named lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV) and a sample was sent to the CDC, which was later passed to the National Cancer Institute, USA (Connor and Kingman, 198. In May 1984, Dr Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute also isolated a virus that caused AIDS, and named it Human T-cell Lymphotropic Virus-III (HTLV-III) (Popovic et al., 1984). In January 1985 a number of more detailed reports were published concerning LAV and HTLV-III, and by March it was clear that the viruses were the same, from the same source, and was the etiological agent of AIDS (Marx, 1985; Chang et al., 1993). In May 1986, the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses ruled that both names should be dropped and a new name, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), be used (Coffin et al., 1986).
I did not at any point disagree that gays are more promiscuious. But that's just a relativity. In Singapore, the breakdown is still 70% staights 8% bisexuals 22% gays. My point is not all gays are promiscuious and not all straights practice safe sex.
From MOH
http://www.moh.gov.sg/corp/publications/statistics/hiv.do
Mode of Transmission 1985-92
'93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 Jun 2005
Sexual Orientation
- Heterosexual 75 47 62 83 103 135 163 154 194 191 184 183 206 81
- Homosexual 54 6 15 17 12 12 12 29 12 26 30 40 72 34
- Bisexual 18 9 9 10 20 15 19 14 16 16 12 14 22 2
The fact remains - and borne out by local and overseas researches - HOMOSEXUAL PRACTISES carry a HIGHER RISKS of AIDS/HIV infection.
Am I supposed to be convinced by your repeat of the MOH statistics to prove your following point ?
" In Singapore, the breakdown is still 70% staights 8% bisexuals 22% gays. "
Looking at numbers and statistics, it will depend on the manner you look at the numbers, and how you intend to interpret those numbers - which unfortunately you have used those numbers wrongly to prove your preferred position.
If Singapore has a majority of its population being Chinese, will it not be obvious that the number of Chinese afflicted by the AIDS/HIV will have a higher percentage than the other races ?
Singapore Population (July 2005) (CIA - The World Factbook)
Total: 4,425,730
76.8% Chinese : 3,398,960
13.9% Malay : 615,176
7.9% Indian : 349,632
1.4% Others : 61,962
HIV/AIDS INFECTED SINGAPOREAN BY ETHNIC GROUP
(1985 - June 2005) - (from MOH referenced site given )
Chinese : 2100 ( 83.7% of Total HIV/AIDS Infected )
Malay : 212 ( 8.5% )
Indian/Sikh/Pakistani : 116 ( 4.6% )
Others : 80 ( 3.2% )
When the HIV/AIDS infected are looked at as a percentage of the Ethnic Group Size, the percentages can be quite shocking:
Chinese : 2100 out of 3,398,960 ( 0.062% )
Malays : 212 out of 615,175 ( 0.0345% )
Indian/Sikh/Pakistani : 116 out of 349,632 ( 0.033% )
Others : 80 out of 61,962 ( 0.13% )
What do you think is the size of the Singaporean HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY that practises HOMOSEXUAL SEX, compared to the larger size of the NON-Homosexual Singaporeans ?
Looking at the Statistics for the period up to June 2005, from the MOH site that you have offered, there are 81 HIV/AIDS infected persons in the Heterosexual Group, and 34 from the HOMOSEXUAL Group, and 2 from the Bisexual Group - (leaving out the other statistics for HIV/AIDS inflicted by other non-sexual abuses) .
Assuming that the size of the HOMOSEXUAL Community will be SMALL, will it not be cause for alarm that those inflicted by HIV/AIDS from the HOMOSEXUAL Community (34 persons ) is FORTY TWO PERCENT as much as those from the larger population that are NON-HOMOSEXUALS (81 persons ) ?
Ministry of Health, Singapore
http://www.moh.gov.sg/corp/publications/statistics/hiv.do
CIA - The World Factbook
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/sn.html
Singapore facing “alarming AIDS epidemic” : Government – 11-11-2004
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/041111af.htm
Increase in HIV infection in Singapore amongst Gays
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/040919a1.htm -
Originally posted by earthlings73:
Yes, let us focus back on the entire issue that HOMOSEXUALS practises "UN-NATURAL SEX " - as the human organs that are used to attain HOMOSEXUAL SATISFACTIONS are NOT NORMAL .
Quote from post by Atobe:
If HOMOSEXUALS need to justify their preferred HOMOSEXUAL POSITIONS with the same acts as those sub-species that remain locked in the NEANDERTHAL AGE, will that not lead the HOMOSEXUALS to the same consequences of the NEANDERTHALS ?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neanderthal went extinct because Homo Sapiens started to move into Neanderthal's territories.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/tv_radio/wwcavemen/
Let's us focus back on the main argument again. A claim of "homosexuals are unnatural" has no basis.
1) It can be found in nature.
2) It's not a new phenomenum. Homo Sapiens just do not evolve over-night to become a species with no homosexuality.
3) Anal sex? I had quoted an article earlier to say that anal sex is not practice by homosexuals alone. [/b]
HOMOSAPIENS have evolved to be a HIGHER SPECIES that have VALUES not shared or practised by the SUB-SPECIES.
Have HOMOSEXUALS not kept in step in the evolution stages with the rest of the HOMOSAPIENS ?
Do HOMOSEXUALS need to refer to the SEXUAL BEHAVIOR of the SUB-SPECIES, and also the DEVIATIONIST SEXUAL PRACTISES of Other PERVERTED HOMOSAPIENS, to justify their own HOMO SEXUAL behaviours ? -
Originally posted by ahpeh:
In the animal kingdom, the strong devour the weak.
When you talk about nature, nothing can be wrong, it only when you talk about morals, then it is subjective. But even then, one man's meat is another man's poison.
Some of the animal species even practise incest.
Some species even eat their own young.
As a HUMAN, will you allow your values to degenerate to the level of the sub-species ?
The existence of MORALS is due to the complexity of the HUMAN MIND to be able to differentiate between RIGHT and WRONG - which differentiate HUMANS as a SUPERIOR SPECIES compared to the SUB-SPECIES.
FOOD is FOOD - even for the sub-species - if you believe in NATURE.
When faced with starvation -
One Man's meat is everyone's meat, and NO MAN WILL EAT POISON. -
Originally posted by ahpeh:
No wish to repeat the materials posted already.
Dont refer to anal sex as "homosex", not only gays practice this. And its not the only form of sex that gays practice. The diseases that result from anal sex, can also be similary caused by "straight sex".
If you have reached this reply to your post, you will probably have read my posts on this same Page 9 - that were my replies to earthlings73 posted this Sunday morning.
Where are you leading us with this line ?
http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html
i wouldnt totally believe in the article but it does gives a logical estimate of the gay population at large, about 1-3%.
For the population to decline, there would need to be a more than 50% majority of people being gay, man and woman, and that all subsequent generations be more than 50% gay too. this is under the assumption that gays will never have children ( im referring to the lesbians and bisexuals here), and that every couple has at most 2 children.
Sounds ridiculous doesnt it?
Even with the PRESENTLY SMALL HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY - indulging in their SAME SEX PRACTICES - the Singapore Population is already in decline.
Do we need the present population to be FIFTY PERCENT HOMOSEXUAL before experiencing a POPULATION DECLINE ?
Where have you been for the last TEN YEARS, when the Government is rubbing their hands, hoping to reverse the negative effects of their 2-Child Policy, and for every adult Singaporean to start having NORMAL SEX and produce babies ? -
Originally posted by CenturionMBT:
Sucouring the Mods will not strengthen your case on the logic nor viability of HOMOSEXUAL Practises.
Up yours you lah you bloody moron. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS HERE UNDERSTAND!!!!
I am starting to dislike this thread.
Contemplating closing thread in 24 hrs.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yes please...
[quote]Originally posted by CenturionMBT:
Pika wan to be mod ahh.... speak nicely to fireice hor...
FI.... your call
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ah.. If pika is added as a mod, could you help to close this thread too?
Btw, I do think that Pika is objective enough to handle moderating duties..
In case this gets misinterpreted, I'm not saying that the current mods are not doing their duties... Thank you guys...
Why are you so anxious to close each thread that exposes the facts on the failings of a HOMOSEXUAL LIFE ?
Is it not your intention to give publicity to HOMOSEXUALS in Singapore ?
" I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "
Voltaire -
Being gay is anyone's right, the bible told us not to judge anyone unless you yourself want to be judged.
Enough said
-
Originally posted by chronicles:
The Bible also say :
Being gay is anyone's right, the bible told us not to judge anyone unless you yourself want to be judged.
Enough said
Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."
Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature. And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error . "
What do you think if the 'due penalty for their error' that is to be received in their 'own persons' - ( own bodies ) ?
"To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching. "
Warren E. Burger
"Great minds are to make others great.
Their superiority is to be used, not to break the multitude to intellectual vassalage, not to establish over them a spiritual tyranny,
but to rouse them from lethargy, and to aid them to judge for themselves. "
William Ellery Channing
"Stand upright, speak thy thoughts, declare The truth thou hast, that all may share; Be bold, proclaim it everywhere: They only live who dare. "
Voltaire -
You can write a lot.Originally posted by Atobe:Can we not make the correct CHOICES to help ourselves ? But let's focus back to the main point:
Do you have any study to show conclusively that orientation change therapy works for all gays, whether they are religious or non-religious? -
All these figures just go to show that HIV will not select its victim, and not just gays (A point which you have assumed right at the beginning).Originally posted by Atobe:Originally posted by earthlings73:
" In Singapore, the breakdown is still 70% staights 8% bisexuals 22% gays. "
I did admit all along that it's a serious problem within the gay comm isn't it? So how to resolve this problem?
Work must be done to help spread the protective sex message, with the co-operation from saunas, pubs, websites and most of all, the police and media (by not disrupting volunteering work from AfA).
You might argue for an attempt to "cure" all gays from homosexuality, but again, where are the study to show that cure is readily available. -
On the one hand, you claim that human are the superior race because of morality.Originally posted by Atobe:The existence of MORALS is due to the complexity of the HUMAN MIND to be able to differentiate between RIGHT and WRONG - which differentiate HUMANS as a SUPERIOR SPECIES compared to the SUB-SPECIES.
FOOD is FOOD - even for the sub-species - if you believe in NATURE.
When faced with starvation -
One Man's meat is everyone's meat, and NO MAN WILL EAT POISON.
On the other hand, you claim that human are just like animals by eating another human's meat (immoral).
How contradictory can this get?
But then is homo sapiens really moral? Constantly thinking of new ways (of mass destruction) to exterminate other homo sapiens. Constantly turning the natural world (grassland, forest, and all other natural habitats) to an unnatural one (concrete, cement, steel), which leads to the extinction of many other animal species.
Before we get OOT again, Let's focus back on what you need to address:
Is homo sapiens part of nature? An animal species by itself? If the answer is yes, shouldn't evidences from the animal kingdom be good enough to show that homosexuality does not arise out of "unnatural" source. It's part of "nature". It has been around since homo sapiens began to record history. And it's practiced by at least 450 species in the animal kingdom (not just one or two). -
What you need to show:Originally posted by Atobe:Do we need the present population to be FIFTY PERCENT HOMOSEXUAL before experiencing a POPULATION DECLINE ?
1) Homosexuality has been around for ages. Why homo sapiens has not become extinct as a species?
2) Same as other species that practices homosexuality. Why are they still around?
3) Is there an optimal number of human beings that should rule over the world? Maybe we had already surpassed that optimal number. Just look at the poverty around.
4) Are there studies to show that an environment that does not condemn homosexuality will lead to a higher incidence rate (not visibility) of homosexuality? The environmental argument so far does not have a good theory to be tested. -
Showing respect to others (to those people who deserve the respect) is part of my moral upbringing.Originally posted by Atobe:Sucouring the Mods will not strengthen your case on the logic nor viability of HOMOSEXUAL Practises.
Why are you so anxious to close each thread that exposes the facts on the failings of a HOMOSEXUAL LIFE ?
Is it not your intention to give publicity to HOMOSEXUALS in Singapore ?
" I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. "
Voltaire
Because we had started a new GLBT forum. Any topics related to gays can be discussed there. -
Bible quotations should go to EH..Originally posted by Atobe:The Bible also say :
-
you mean +1 can help?Originally posted by laurence82:Can start to +1 already?
okay.. +1 for me! -
The bible said not to be gay but did the bible say you have a right in judging people's life
Those that have not sin shall cast the first stone, refer to a reading from the bible -
holy shit this topic has grown since i last game online...
homos are okay damnit. -
Not only that, forgive your brother's sin and yours will be forgiven. Begrudge your brother for his sins and GOd will punish you severely.Originally posted by chronicles:The bible said not to be gay but did the bible say you have a right in judging people's life
Those that have not sin shall cast the first stone, refer to a reading from the bible