Homosexual
-
Originally posted by loudmonkey:
hmm... instead of thinking of it as an individual "choice" and "influence", isn't it possible to also think of it as a society's conception of sexuality?
It is my belief that the process of growing up, relationship with family, interaction with friends, i.e. the external environmental factors, will influence in whether a person chooses to be homo or not.
when you say "so the homo choose to be homo", you are assuming that the person is born a homo, which contradicts your agreement with me that becoming homo is due to external environmental factors. If you really agree with me, then how can a person who is already born to be homo CHOOSE to be homo later in life? It is like saying, how can a boy (who is already born a boy) choose to be a boy?
the idea that one can "choose" is not very neutral... when a choice is called for, values are inevitably attached to those choices and though u may suggest that they are both equally valid and respectable, i hardly think thats how the human mind works.
when we "choose", we reject. for instance, when an individual "chooses" hetrosexuality, he does not discriminate against homosexuals, but he would be rejecting homosexual conceptions of love, relationships and sex.
and that is just an overly narrow understanding of what sexuality should mean. modern society is just plain vulgar and prudish to impose these sort of demarcations that hardly makes sense.
if u ask me, the ancient greeks got it right all along... its just too bad that the nobody bothered to properly understand the nature of being human before passing judgement based on narrow precepts... bah... religion... what a con-job. -
Yes it is possible, i agree. But of course I am looking from the point of an individual, and u r looking from the point of society. I think we concur that our society's copcept of sexuality is narrow, as u argued earlier.Originally posted by CX:hmm... instead of thinking of it as an individual "choice" and "influence", isn't it possible to also think of it as a society's conception of sexuality?
I feel "rejecting" is a rather strong word to use. If a person does not discriminate, like what you say, maybe it would be more accurate to use "not subscribe to homosexual conceptions of love, relationships and sex?" I feel rejecting would mean that the person is taking a negative stand. On the other hand, "not subscribe to" would infer to having a neutral stand on this. (not supporting and not rejecting)the idea that one can "choose" is not very neutral... when a choice is called for, values are inevitably attached to those choices and though u may suggest that they are both equally valid and respectable, i hardly think thats how the human mind works. [/quote]
Hmmmmm...i dun really get what u r trying to say in this paragraph...., i dun understand what u mean by "the idea that one can "choose" is not very neutral...".[quote]when we "choose", we reject. for instance, when an individual "chooses" hetrosexuality, he does not discriminate against homosexuals, but he would be rejecting homosexual conceptions of love, relationships and sex.
well I am not religious...but religion is a con-job?? erh....no comment.and that is just an overly narrow understanding of what sexuality should mean. modern society is just plain vulgar and prudish to impose these sort of demarcations that hardly makes sense.[quote]
Agreed![quote]if u ask me, the ancient greeks got it right all along... its just too bad that the nobody bothered to properly understand the nature of being human before passing judgement based on narrow precepts... bah... religion... what a con-job.
-
Originally posted by loudmonkey:
i look at society's conception because not many pple can remain aloof of that... it influences us in more ways than one. when i'm in my cynical moods, i might even argue that there's no such thing as an individual. but lets save that for another time
Hmmmmm...i dun really get what u r trying to say in this paragraph...., i dun understand what u mean by "the idea that one can "choose" is not very neutral...".
but basically, what i was trying to say was, when we call something a "choice", it is never a neutral affair. free-will becomes translated into devil's choice at the drop of the hat depending on which narrow-minded bigot is around.
in our current context, when we suggest that sexuality is a "choice" , though on one hand, we agree with the rights of the individual to choose, we also imply that such a choice is debatable, to say the least... why do we call it "alternative sexuality" then?
and some will suggest that they "choose" deviancy, perversion and abnormality... value judgements always accompany choices.
in our obcession to categorise and understand everything, we had made the world cold, rigid and reductionistic... pple don't think for themselves... they just make "choices" from a ready list...
but that is not the point at all! ultimately, society and people need to ask themselves if this rigid definition of "family", "society" and "sexuality" needs to be re-looked... not that they are invalid, but that they are inadequate and the concepts had stagnated. -
Yea, liao gai liao gai.Originally posted by CX:but basically, what i was trying to say was, when we call something a "choice", it is never a neutral affair. free-will becomes translated into devil's choice at the drop of the hat depending on which narrow-minded bigot is around.
making choices is about being influenced (whether good or bad) by others, therefore it is never neutral. If that is what you mean, I concur.
Yea, good example would be that they claim that they were born homo, which is such a convenient excuse to use for them (since it is so often used), without understanding what they are talking about.
in our obcession to categorise and understand everything, we had made the world cold, rigid and reductionistic... pple don't think for themselves... they just make "choices" from a ready list... -
Loudmonkey,
I really intended to mean homo are not born.
We are differed on the pt about whether homo is wrong.I believe homosex is inmoral & against nature, don't u think so? -
CX,
u should know that i said u are bankrupt intellectually after he called me a moron.So shouldn't u be blamed?
The insulting words u hurled at me are many times more than i do to u, do u think u are right to do so? -
I have 1 question: what does "against nature" mean to you?Originally posted by PRP:Loudmonkey,
I really intended to mean homo are not born.
We are differed on the pt about whether homo is wrong.I believe homosex is inmoral & against nature, don't u think so? -
Originally posted by PRP:
blame? for making a valid observation of your narrow minded stupidity?
CX,
u should know that i said u are bankrupt intellectually after he called me a moron.So shouldn't u be blamed?
intellectually bankrupt? for pointing out that the issue is not as simple as u think and illustrating why?The insulting words u hurled at me are many times more than i do to u, do u think u are right to do so?
i don't care if u insult me... u have a point to make? make it clear. u think i'm wrong? refute me point by point.
if u had even BOTHERED to substantiate half the things u said, u think anyone would call u stupid?
don't come here asking stupid questions, saying stupid things and expecting pple entertain u and agree with u.
and DON'T come like a pathetic creature claiming that i hurt your feelings by pointing out the OBVIOUS inadequacies in your shallow statements. -
Originally posted by loudmonkey:
ah... and how OTHER PEOPLE see these "choices" ... through the biases they bring with them.
Yea, liao gai liao gai.
making choices is about being influenced (whether good or bad) by others, therefore it is never neutral. If that is what you mean, I concur.
say for instance: the thinking that "girls just need to get married and have babies... no need to study or work so hard" ...
some older generation families, even today, still believe in that... so if a girl chooses to study, and become a career woman, its seen as a "wrong choice" ...
what i meant to say also is: "choices" are made and judged by WHAT standards?Yea, good example would be that they claim that they were born homo, which is such a convenient excuse to use for them (since it is so often used), without understanding what they are talking about.
hee... yeah... any point of view that stems from ignorance is always funny... the contradictions just crack u up... like "feminists" who still expect men to hold the doors for them... uh... hello???
overly neat labels just amuse me... reality is just too untidy for such nonsense.
but ultimately, i have no problems whatsoever with a person's individuality OR sexuality as long as they're comfortable with who they are, who they choose to be and who they love. -
Loudmonkey,
By nature, sex should be heterosexual because it is for procreation.Homosex cannot achieve this purpose of nature.So .....
Dear CX,
By right, there is no need to get personal when debating a topic.One should argue rationally to convince readers.
But u keep hurling insulting words at me and when I react similarily, u gets even more agressive.So there are some 'fireworks' in this debate.
In MY OPINION,u are kiasu,petty minded,can't take criticism well and a bully.I think these kind of characters don't help u to win supporters.
U said u could be nice.Let's see if u would be like that from now onwards.
Note: There isn't a single insulting words (except words of comments)such as stupid in this msg. -
Originally posted by PRP:
yawn... i'll let him answer that this time... your stubborness knows no bounds. i already addressed that in one of my previous posts...
Loudmonkey,
By nature, sex should be heterosexual because it is for procreation.Homosex cannot achieve this purpose of nature.So .....Dear CX,
at least i cite examples... THAT is rational. u have NOTHING but your narrow-minded opinion.
By right, there is no need to get personal when debating a topic.One should argue rationally to convince readers.But u keep hurling insulting words at me and when I react similarily, u gets even more agressive.So there are some 'fireworks' in this debate.
can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. wanna defuse the fireworks? addresses the issues PROPERLY! don't just give stupid one liners and expect me to be "nice" in return.In MY OPINION,u are kiasu,petty minded,can't take criticism well and a bully.I think these kind of characters don't help u to win supporters.
in MY OBSERVATION, you are narrow-minded, stupid and stubborn. u can't think beyond the superficial on any issues and u STILL think that this issue is straight-forward and black / white when pple have been telling you that THERE'S MORE TO IT!!!
me bully? and what are u? a victim? who's the one that started the "discussion" by judging pple to be "abnormal" and "unnatural" ?U said u could be nice.Let's see if u would be like that from now onwards.
i CAN be nice. can YOU be smart?
i'll extend YOU the courtesy if u offer ME some intellectual depth in your views.Note: There isn't a single insulting words (except words of comments)such as stupid in this msg.
it STILL fails to substantiate your shallow views.
i told u... i don't care if u're rude if u can at least offer some depth and sophistication to your views.
if u can't, it just makes u a polite moron.
i'm not in the business of sugar-coating my views. u want nice? talk to a priest. -
Moron CX,
Is this what u want me to do?Hurling insults is your strong point.Were i wrong to say u were bankrupt intellectually.
Don't think highly of your intellect.If your intellect is high,u wouldn't argue with personal attacks.U are in fact an empty vessel which makes the most noise.Probalbly u don't know about yourself, can't blame u.
I'm not interested to exchange insults with u.I want to debate the topic RATIONALLY.Perhaps u want to use the tactics of personal insults to intimidate me and stop me from this debate as some chaps scared of u and gave up.
If your next msg has a lot of insulting words,I just wouldn't read your msg after that and argue my view alone. -
Originally posted by PRP:
i have many strong points... insult is just a hobby i unleash on idiots. am i wrong to observe that your views are shallow, narrow and stupid?
Moron CX,
Is this what u want me to do?Hurling insults is your strong point.Were i wrong to say u were bankrupt intellectually.Don't think highly of your intellect.If your intellect is high,u wouldn't argue with personal attacks.U are in fact an empty vessel which makes the most noise.Probalbly u don't know about yourself, can't blame u.
if u had a valid point to make, the personal attacks would not have concealed the truth and validity of those points. fact remains, u have NOTHING and the insults hit u where it hurts the most... your pityful pride.I'm not interested to exchange insults with u.I want to debate the topic RATIONALLY.Perhaps u want to use the tactics of personal insults to intimidate me and stop me from this debate as some chaps scared of u and gave up.
i told u from the start. u want RATIONAL, then DON'T JUDGE. i have another discussion on now with the chap whom u think is "afraid" of me...
u give me too much credit. but u're not wrong to give yourself too little...
in debate, egos get wounded. get used to it. but one at least opens his mind to CONCEDE that the other person has a point as valid as, if not more so than your own and if u can't counter it, take it like a man and learn at least that another perspective exists.If your next msg has a lot of insulting words,I just wouldn't read your msg after that and argue my view alone.
haha... hope i haven't disappointed u then... argue your point alone? in case u're wondering, YOU ARE ALONE!
i wonder myself if i participate in this farce out of amusement or pity... -
Keyboard,
Althou i think homo is wrong,i certainly accept homosexuals as human beings.
CX,
Why can't i judge on homosex?If homosex is right,what's there to afraid to be judged by others?If it is wrong,of course they don't want others to judge and tell them what they do is wrong.So are u afraid others to pass judgement on homo?The claim that homo is neither right or wrong is simply NONSENSE.Whatever action one takes,there is right or wrong about it.If u don't do anything,of course no right or wrong.
I'm clear of your tacticsJust say the opinion of your opponent is stupid (no reason even given), so he is wrong ahd u are right.So your opponents are stupid,u are the intelligent one.So u win the debate,your opponent lose.I think a small kid also know how to use such a tactics -- just say other ppl STUPID.
I'm scare of your insults.Your insulting skill is superb.Your reasoning power is weak.U are a boasting cock and an EMPTY vessel which makes the most noise.I don't wish to be angered by your msg so i won't read your msg again. -
Originally posted by PRP:
so... u accept them as human beings and people, but u judge them to be "wrong" , "abnormal" and "unnatural" ?
Keyboard,
Althou i think homo is wrong,i certainly accept homosexuals as human beings.
CX,
Why can't i judge on homosex?If homosex is right,what's there to afraid to be judged by others?If it is wrong,of course they don't want others to judge and tell them what they do is wrong.So are u afraid others to pass judgement on homo?The claim that homo is neither right or wrong is simply NONSENSE.Whatever action one takes,there is right or wrong about it.If u don't do anything,of course no right or wrong.
what's so "rational" or "right" about such hypocrisy? what about what Keyboard said about judging pple for who they are, and what they can do?
so... to you, it doesn't matter how smart, how talented, how versatile a person is... as long as he / she is homosexual, he / she is "wrong" , "abnormal" and "unnatural" ? isn't that a rather glaring double standard?
ever saw the Mona Lisa in the Lourve Museum?I'm clear of your tacticsJust say the opinion of your opponent is stupid (no reason even given), so he is wrong ahd u are right.So your opponents are stupid,u are the intelligent one.So u win the debate,your opponent lose.I think a small kid also know how to use such a tactics -- just say other ppl STUPID.
its so much more than that... but since u didn't get it over the past 7 pages, i least expect u to get it now...I'm scare of your insults.Your insulting skill is superb.Your reasoning power is weak.U are a boasting cock and an EMPTY vessel which makes the most noise.I don't wish to be angered by your msg so i won't read your msg again.
but u've never read them properly
so what's new? shallow, egotistical characters like u wanna read stuff that u agree with and feel threatened by pple who can challenge your bigotry and narrow mindedness.
how convenient... when exposed for the shallow mind that u are, u accuse pple of insulting you and wounding your precious ego.
-
Firstly we do not have the right to judge whether being homosexual is right or wrong. If they choose to follow that life style so be it. Some religions choose to hold the view that being homosexual is detrimental to their faith..let them have the freedom to do so. Each of us have a certain moral standard that we ascribe to. We should not impose judgement on others.
And that sex is for pro-creation purposes...that is something hard for me to swallow. Humans DO have sex for enjoyment as well and they enjoy sex with the person they love most. If I limit sex to only creating children...gosh....I rather have a test tube baby...the probability of getting pregnant could be higher -
No Right or Wrong about Homo
Someone claims there is no right or wrong about homo.He uses the anology of choosing between an apple or a durian.Sound reasonable,isn't it?
In fact,by using 2 (good) fruits to compare hetero & homo, he is saying homo is good.Yet the analogy is to show there is no good or bad about homo.This is the CONTRACDITON of his argument.
Common sense will tell u that only if homosex like heterosex is good,then u are free to choose either one of them.So from now onwards, homo supporters should take the stand that homo is right or good.The opinion that there is no right or wrong about homo is simply WRONG.
Pls wait and see how the kiasu guy CX will 'rebut' my argument 'intelligently'. -
CX. i think we can just ignore him. no point talking to someone who doesn't even know what "siggy" meant, narrow-minded as he is, and simply assumed it is an insult. AND then lack the balls and guts to even admit that he was definately ignorant, and cowardly ignores all my points in total avoidance.
-
haha... i know... he just said i was wrong without addressing why too... thats why i stopped repeating myself days ago...Originally posted by HENG@:CX. i think we can just ignore him. no point talking to someone who doesn't even know what "siggy" meant, narrow-minded as he is, and simply assumed it is an insult. AND then lack the balls and guts to even admit that he was definately ignorant, and cowardly ignores all my points in total avoidance.
i just come in to poke the troll now...
apples, durians, bananas, they're all fruits hee... just couldn't resist the pun... but anyway, how to say whether one fruit is better / worse than the other?
and why does comparing two fruits necessarily mean that one is better than the other in any absolute sense?
it just gets funny when ignorant pple get defensive...
-
God donot creat anyone half gal or half boy. Check yourself!!! Anything looks like "half-half"??? If not, be like a man and be like a woman. Stop confusing the world!!!
-
Originally posted by CX:
very!
haha... i know... he just said i was wrong without addressing why too... thats why i stopped repeating myself days ago...
i just come in to poke the troll now...
apples, durians, bananas, they're all [b]fruits hee... just couldn't resist the pun... but anyway, how to say whether one fruit is better / worse than the other?
and why does comparing two fruits necessarily mean that one is better than the other in any absolute sense?
it just gets funny when ignorant pple get defensive...
[/b] -
Originally posted by CX:
I wun post here anymore. I give up.
haha... i know... he just said i was wrong without addressing why too... thats why i stopped repeating myself days ago...
i just come in to poke the troll now...
apples, durians, bananas, they're all [b]fruits hee... just couldn't resist the pun... but anyway, how to say whether one fruit is better / worse than the other?
and why does comparing two fruits necessarily mean that one is better than the other in any absolute sense?
it just gets funny when ignorant pple get defensive...
[/b]
*shake head*
suan le ba......
-
Greengoblin,
I do not pass judgement on a particular person but judge on homo.Morality should be universal, it shouldn't be my morality or your moralilty.
Heng,
Why don't rebut my argument?Just give subjective judgemental words is easy. -
From the above msg, u can see the error in logic of those who claim there is no right or wrong about homo.They aren't even clear about their own stand.How can they argue like that?Originally posted by PRP:No Right or Wrong about Homo
Someone claims there is no right or wrong about homo.He uses the anology of choosing between an apple or a durian.Sound reasonable,isn't it?
In fact,by using 2 (good) fruits to compare hetero & homo, he is saying homo is good.Yet the analogy is to show there is no good or bad about homo.This is the CONTRACDITON of his argument.
Common sense will tell u that only if homosex like heterosex is good,then u are free to choose either one of them.So from now onwards, homo supporters should take the stand that homo is right or good.The opinion that there is no right or wrong about homo is simply WRONG.
Pls wait and see how the kiasu guy CX will 'rebut' my argument 'intelligently'.
I disagree with their opinion and they call me a bigot and i am narrow-minded.How 'intelligent' they are!
I dare not read CX's rebutal.He is good in insulting but poor in logical thinking.What can u expect from him? -
Originally posted by PRP:I dare not read CX's rebutal.He is good in insulting but poor in logical thinking.What can u expect from him? what can we expect from you?