but that's the problem now. they want to push to be recognised as natural and right.
Homosexual is certainly not natural.
They may have their rights, but to declare homosexual as "natural" conduct is certainly wrong.
It must be disapproved, not approved.
one is already discriminating against them by simply saying that being 'homosexual' is "not normal"
How on earth can homosexual be considered normal?
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:We can't be so sure since the laws here are a lot stricter. But in the playground, bullies are probably wrecking the same emotional havoc, because they have been conditioned by their parents to regard gays and sissies are the same disgusting lot.
The government has been open in accepting the need to tolerate gays at the workplace, but on the quiet, it clamps down on overt expressions of their lifestyle.
So where is the moral equality in the question? Dumbdumb! has been dumb enough to insist on religious-aborogated morality.
Originally posted by Ah Chia:Homosexual is certainly not natural.
They may have their rights, but to declare homosexual as "natural" conduct is certainly wrong.
It must be disapproved, not approved.
But homosexuality is occuring naturally, so it is a natural conduct or not? So makes hetreosexuality the natural conduct?
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:I agree with what part of what you have said, that being anti-discrimination goes both ways. That is why I find it sad that adoption centres with Christian and Catholic patronage in the UK have to close or change names because of the new anti-discriminatory laws. It's not as if gay couples and single parents have other adoption centres to go to there.
However, it is difficult to support the segment of the anti-alternative lifestyle lobby that only says, "It's disgusting/unnatural/a slippery slope/etc" without reasoned dialogue. Unfortunately, they are the most vocal of the bunch too. It could also be that the tides are changing, just as we now condemn any views that support racism, deny the Holocaust or detest mixed marriages.
What kind of 'reasoned dialogue' are you demanding for? Do you have the scientific or social empirical data that gayism is only a phase, that it hinders not the birth progression of humanity?
I dont have such data too, but should we just stupidly, despite all that we had been painstakingly taught in diverse academic fields, simply sit back, and watch how it pans out 3 generations later?
How sure can you be that sexual freedom promulgated by the loud gay minority lobby that it will not lead to beastility? After all, what is sexual freedom and liberty of love, if it is not absolute and total perogative, priviledge and liberty to indulge in love and sex of any kind, beginning with the unnatural sexual union of similar sex species?
Again, are rational men, out of fear of being seen as 'suppressive' or 'discriminatory', stand back and watch the perverted destruction of families and civilisation as we know it?
Be a liberal by all means, but be aware that there is a cost to pay for freedom. You and I may escape paying it, but it may be our next generations or the following ones who will have to pay for our fear to speak out today.
Originally posted by Ah Chia:How on earth can homosexual be considered normal?
Here's a question for you - is deafness normal?
Originally posted by xtreyier:
What kind of 'reasoned dialogue' are you demanding for? Do you have the scientific or social empirical data that gayism is only a phase, that it hinders not the birth progression of humanity?I dont have such data too, but should we just stupidly, despite all that we had been painstakingly taught in diverse academic fields, simply sit back, and watch how it pans it 3 generations later?
How sure can you be that sexual freedom promulgated by the loud gay minority lobby that it will not lead to beastility? After all, what is freedom if it is not absolute and total perogative, priviledge and liberty to indulge in sex of any kind, beginning with the unnatural sexual union of similar sex species?
Again, are rational men, out of fear of being seen as 'suppressive' or 'discriminatory', stand back and watch the perverted destruction of families and civilisation as we know it?
Be a liberal by all means, but be aware that there is a cost to pay for freedom. You and I may escape paying it, but it may be our next generations or the following ones who will have to pay for our fear to speak out today.
Have you questioned your definition of 'natural'? Homosexuality occurs to a minority of people, and that is why the human race isn't going to die out. Why are you pushing so hard to protect the conservative definition of family when it is just a construct of history, and certainly not the only model that exists? And freedom to engage in any kind of sexual activity isn't what is being asked for.
But homosexuality is occuring naturally, so it is a natural conduct or not?
So people born with two heads is natural? (By two heads I mean two heads with brain, not one head on top, another smaller head on bottom)
Here's a question for you - is deafness normal?
Is incest normal?
Originally posted by Ah Chia:So people born with two heads is natural? (By two heads I mean two heads with brain, not one head on top, another smaller head on bottom)
Is incest normal?
Don't reply with another question when you haven't answered that yourself, when you haven't even given a hint of your spectrum of what is "natural".
personally i'm against being gay or lesbian, it is not something to encourage
but if there are people who really choose this kind of lifestyle, then let them be, it's their own life as long as no one else is hurt
just like smoking, u are just killing your own lungs, not encouraged but it is your own business if u die
Originally posted by Ah Chia:So people born with two heads is natural? (By two heads I mean two heads with brain, not one head on top, another smaller head on bottom)
Is incest normal?
So a male born with no penis but having a fully distended scotrum is normal? I am talking across species that homosexuality is often seen. If you ask a biologist whether is it normal, he or she will tell you that is normal in their observations.
Homosexual activity to me is clearly unnatural, not natural.
So you consider homosexual activity to be natural?
Originally posted by Ah Chia:Homosexual activity to me is clearly unnatural, not natural.
So you consider homosexual activity to be natural?
Sorry, not me, I consider any sexuality as abnormal.
Before we proceed, we have to make a distinction between 'normal' and 'natural'.
If you ask a biologist whether is it normal, he or she will tell you that is normal in their observations.
They talking about animals or humans?
Animals eat their own babies also normal you know.
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:Have you questioned your definition of 'natural'? Homosexuality occurs to a minority of people, and that is why the human race isn't going to die out. Why are you pushing so hard to protect the conservative definition of family when it is just a construct of history, and certainly not the only model that exists? And freedom to engage in any kind of sexual activity isn't what is being asked for.
What had been the bedrock of stability for our civlisation of 6000 years to grow? If you are unaware, it had been the family, the union of a male and female with their progeny to tap, cultivate and enhance the meaning of gift of life that had been bestowed upon us on this beautiful planet, either by a higher being of the religious minded or products of the big bang theory suscribed by evolutionists.
It had lead to the evolution of our species, the masters of Earth, and more critically the continuity of mankind, despite its flaws but had come with joys you and I can experience today.
Therefore, what is the defination of natural? It can only be that which had kept mankind and civilisation alive, although higher intellectuals will still argue with more definations. To simple people like you and me, it can only mean traditions that had kept us forward in life instead of regression.
Homosexuality may occurs with a minority of people, but like the swine virus, it will spread if not contained, espacially when they become more vocal and demanding in our liberal age. Are we to just stand back and let them grow destroy the family and thus civilisation itself?
Be a homosexual by all means, they too are humans, with a right to live, but they must not be encouraged nor supported, no matter how liberal we may become, or we will be the ones staring at our eventual demise as a civilisation.
Originally posted by Ah Chia:They talking about animals or humans?
Animals eat their own babies also normal you know.
Cannibalism is also normal in anthropology.
What had been the bedrock of stability for our civlisation of 6000 years to grow? If you are unaware, it had been the family, the union of a male and female with their progeny to tap, cultivate and enhance the meaning of gift of life that had been bestowed upon us on this beautiful planet, either by a higher being of the religious minded or products of the big bang theory suscribed by evolutionists.
It had lead to the evolution of our species, the masters of Earth, and more critically the continuity of mankind, despite its flaws but had come with joys you and I can experience today.
Therefore, what is the defination of natural? It can only be that which had kept mankind and civilisation alive, although higher intellectuals will still argue with more definations. To simple people like you and me, it can only mean traditions that had kept us forward in life instead of regression.
Homosexuality may occurs with a minority of people, but like the swine virus, it will spread if not contained, espacially when they become more vocal and demanding in our liberal age. Are we to just stand back and let them grow destroy the family and thus civilisation itself?
Be a homosexual by all means, they too are humans, with a right to live, but they must not be encouraged nor supported, no matter how liberal we may become, or we will be the ones staring at our eventual demise as a civilisation.
U know there r homosexuals from the distant past till now and human civilisation still progresses. Do u really think one day all human will become homosexual ? Nobody is asking all people become homosexual but just realise they exist and let them be and do the things they want privately. However people r not letting them do even tat by implementing 377A
Homosexual activity to me is clearly unnatural, not natural.
So you consider homosexual activity to be natural?
Why not ? U got science to back up your claim ? Recent studies shows there is a genetic reason behind homosexual and tis gene can help women to reproduce better. Wat reason do u have to say it is not unnatural ?
Originally posted by Ah Chia:Homosexual is certainly not natural.
They may have their rights, but to declare homosexual as "natural" conduct is certainly wrong.
It must be disapproved, not approved.
Considering that Homosexuality itself is incapable of passing its gene on through the next generation, yet we have seen it happening in every time and age, in every major civilisation.
One would think we all carry that possibility in all of us.
Masturbation is disgusting, un-natural and has no purpose in procreation.
We need to ban it.. and set up a penal code to deal with offenders.
If we do not ban it... Humanity shall cease to exist.
Wat reason do u have to say it is not unnatural?
male and female engage in sex I consider natural.
male and male or female and female I consider unnatural.
The cultures of the three major ethnic groups in Singapore; chinese, malay and tamil also consider this to be so.
Which society considers homosexual acts to be natural?
Originally posted by Ah Chia:male and female engage in sex I consider natural.
male and male or female and female I consider unnatural.
The cultures of the three major ethnic groups in Singapore; chinese, malay and tamil also consider this to be so.
Which society considers homosexual acts to be natural?
I don't really think the Chinese has specific teachings in the culture that deals with homosexuality. It's frowned upon, but nothing that really explains it or dealing with it. Don't make blanket statements like that.
The problem has never been whether it is natural, the fact is that homosexuals exist. They would not vanish with a snap of the fingers simply because we made conscious efforts to tell ourselves they don't.
Originally posted by Ah Chia:male and female engage in sex I consider natural.
male and male or female and female I consider unnatural.
The cultures of the three major ethnic groups in Singapore; chinese, malay and tamil also consider this to be so.
Which society considers homosexual acts to be natural?
Having sex with your right hand consider natural or not har ? Very confused.
It's frowned upon
That right.
It considered unnatural or immoral.
They would not vanish with a snap of the fingers simply because we made conscious efforts to tell ourselves they don't.
They should have their rights.
But declare homo as natural should be off limits.
Taboo.
Like incest.
Taboo.
You can't go and declare incest is correct and natural.
U know wat is definition of natural ? It means it is existing and formed by natural from the definitino of dictionary. Animals did tis, human did tis from all its history and science shows it may be due to a gene.The cultures of ethnic groups did not think tis is unnatural because your understanding of natural is wrong.Someone is right to point out the difference between "natural" and "normal". U have no right to state homosexual is not natural