I have already said it is easy to say PROVE IT, to anything that
is said, and add nothing.
It is important because we r discussing scientific facts and the
best person to provide the answer is scientist.
I have also said I do not have my own studies, or experiments,
or reports.
I presume it is links you want. Or others peoples findings. These
are accepted as inconclusive.
I agree it is inconclusive. But I have already mention a point 3
times which u refused to acknowledge or comment.
11 December 2007 · 05:09 PM
Ok, lets say the studies r not conclusive. Tat means gays maybe
inborn. Since u cannot prove it to be wrong, then why r u punishing
them by forcing them to remain single and lonely ? Given
the benefit of doubt, we should practise tolerance and not
discrimination. A person is innocent unless proven guilty.
Why is tis good ? Because we rather jail 100 less criminals than
jail one innocent person.
12 December 2007 · 02:03 PM
Tat is right. I never say tat the
studies r conclusive. However there r studies, reason and ground to
say tat gays r inborn. U cannot prove it wrong as well. And there r
more studies showing homosexual is not a illness. Since we
cannot say for certain, then why condemn them ? Shouldn't we give
them the benefit of the doubt and let them live as normal people
because it can very well mean they r inborn to be
homosexual.
13 December 2007 · 01:10 AM
I already told u. The result is
inconclusive. And tat is why we should give them the
benefit of the doubt. I have stated tis point many times
and u simply ignore them.
Wat is your comment on it ? Why ignore my reply then repeat your
old point again ? R u covering up your ears and eyes and just
repeat wat u thought which is proven to be wrong before ?
Why is homosexuality not a perversion?
Sexual intercourse is a liason between male and female. That is the
basis for sexuality. This developed into courtship, intimacies,
romance, foreplay. And the basis is male/female relationship . Any
deviation is a perversion, even when it is harmless.
Homosexuality, the second syllably denotes sex, and it deviates
from the basic male/female liason to a same gender liason. Is is a
hybrid? No conclusive proof.
Who r u to judge wat is sexuality 
Who r u to define wat is perversion or not ?
Sexuality, based on dictionary is simply sexual behavior in sexual
organism. Homosexual is part of tis sexuality. Who r u to redefine
the word and exclude it out ? Mother nature or god had made animals
gay themself. Who r u to say they r wrong and tat tat is not wat
sexuality is all about ?
Who r u to tell us how people should go about in their sexual
intercourse ?Psychologist do not regard it as a perversion but u
do. Wat give u the right to give such a conclusion ? Did u do any
studies at all or u just tell us wat u think ? Wat do u think about
chewing gums in singapore before ?
IMO, homosexuality is buddy or sistership that went too far. A
man can have a bossum buddy, and live with him, nothing wrong with
that. But to screw his arse, kiss him, and the like, and marry him!
that's the perversion.
Being buddies is not. Same with sistership. Just don't cross the
line.
I am glad u write the word "IMO" in the beginning. Well IMO,
Homosexual r people who r born to like people of the same sex. They
too can like someone and love someone. The difference is due to
their physical body, they like someone of the same sex. U can
imagine yourself liking men like a normal woman, but u have a man
body. If u think liking someone is a perversion, then everybody is
perverted.
Homosexuality is a perversion, whether you accept it or not.
I wanna say the old words again 
Prove it. Otherwise u r just telling me wat u think which can be
wrong.
In my boyhood kampong, there were two men living together, whom
I thought were brothers at that time. We did'nt think anything
about them, were friends with them. Its only on hindsight that I
realise they were gays. Now I don't know where they are, but if I
meet them, I would greet them like any of my old kampong
elderly.
At present, I personaly know of two women, who are like inseparable
sisters, I and everyone else suspect they are lesbians. But we
don't know, and don't care.
Then why enforce a law making them illegal ? Why not just
acknowledge such people exist and let the law die a nature death
?
I say again, what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms is
their own business.
And the law holds the same, unless there is a complaint.
The law explicitly mention tat it is illegal whether it is done
privately or not. I have mention tat in the previous statement
before. If there is no complaints, u can do anything u want. A
complaint only can make u go scotfree, but u still commit the
offence. I can kill a vangabond with no families and friends and go
away scot free because there is no complaints. But I still had
committed the offence of murder.
Furthermore, who r u to say tat when the gays do it privately there
won't have a complainant ? Maybe a busybody using a binoculars at
their neighbour's window can spot the gay couple doing intimacy
acts ? Maybe when gays r doing the act in their room, they forget
to lock the door and a nun living at a next door in the hotel budge
into the wrong room ? Maybe a burglar going into a room spotted the
gay doing their act in their room ? U know I can go on and on...
Who r u to say there won't be a complainant in all cases for the
rest of time ? Just written in the law is already enough
justification to show it is illegal to do it even in private.
But the fact that higher percentage of geys infected with AIDS
does indicate something unfavorable to homo sex
Indian have a worse case of obesity compared with other races.
So does tat indicate something unfavourable about the indian race
?
The govt doesn't ban geys. Section 377A is just a piece of
legislation which says the majortiy of the members of parliament
don't approve gey sex and geys can't publicly promote it because it
is a crime.
So u expect them to live a life of calibracy for your... ehh..
wat reasons do u have to force them not to have sex ? Because u
don't like it ? Because u do not like it u force them to remain a
virgin forever ? Does tat sounds ridiculous to u ? It sounds
ridiculous to me.
1.The natural instinct of sex is heterrosexual.Homo goes against
nature.
Nature shows animals r homosexual themselves. The nature
instinct of sex is mixed.
2.The natural purpose of sex is procreation.Homo sex can't
achieve the purpose of sex.So it goes against the nature.
The purpose of sex is also enjoyment. And most, and I mean 99%
of the world population people in tis world have sex some time in
their life simply for enjoyment. If tat is the case everybody is
guilty. And u should state a law banning all contraceptives
too
3.Higher percentage (than heterosexauals') of local geys are
infected with AIDS.
So ? Higher percentage of car accidents r motorcyclists. So we
should label it as dangerous and ban motorcycle ?
1.It follows the nature (natural instinct & purpose of
sex).
True, But u cannot prove nature does not allow homosexual
2.It is a joy to have babies and bringing them up
3.The children can look after their old parrents.
Tell tat to the monks and catholic fathers.
