My context is, while homosexuality is rampant in the wild, the
act itself is not very darwinian if the role of copulation is to
pass down your genes. So I wonder if a living thing is gay, does
that make it a basket case?
And my case is, celibracy is not darwanian itself and it is
equally in the same basket condition. If tat is a reason to condemn
homosexual, then catholic fathers r in the same situation
Pls .. I've said we should refrain from using the natural
argument in human. Only gay supporters, by citing the rampant cases
of gay animals, use the natural argument.
The whole starting of natural is made by PRP and others.
And he, like many anti gay
people, say tat heterosexual is natural while homosexual is not
natural and the nature role of a male sexual organ is to be used on
a female sexual organ. R u trying to just bullsh !t through and
insist tat only gay talk about natural as an argument and I never
read any replies from them on "natural". Did u even read the
earlier pages of replies ?
Huh .. when the religious people were pushing for the IRs NOT to
start, why didn't the government stop?
You make it seem like the religious people have such big influence
on the government. My foot.
They r different cases with vastly different outcome isn't it ?
Just because the gov build IR doesn't mean the gov heck care
religious people. The gov also insist GST to be raised as well. So
the gov heck care its people and want them to die ?
If they don't feel strongly, it doesn't mean they accept either.
But in decriminalising gay sex, the govt is taking a stand. The
govt has to take a stand 'cos it is either retain or repeal in this
case. The govt cannot sit on the fence like the, according to you,
majority of the citizens.
true
I dunno why you still cannot understand. We are talking about
the status quo. A broader consensus is needed. So what you can do,
and what gay supporters can do, is to achieve this broader
consensus. And not rant in SGF that just 'cos the majority of
people are undecided (according to you), we should repeal the
law.
U need to understand tis. It is indeed the status quo, as it
followed for a few hundred years. But if things r left naturally
without any group of people appealing or repealing, 377A is set to
be eliminated. Meaning if everybody just be quiet and let gov do
its job, 377A will not be retained. The stand of the gov is made
ackward now. Oral sex between a man and woman is legal while
between men is illegal. It is double standard.
Nope. I have all along being using the pragmatic argument. The
darwinian was a comment, not an argument. But you dragged me into
the argument, with your contraception, medicine and what have
you.
And I made my comment on it but u choose to talk and emphasis on
medicine and all the rubbish concept from u. It is u who try to
fight for a case whereby medicine is darwanian and so does the rest
of civilisation except strangely homosexual which is not
darwanian.
Since you like to debate so much, then I feng4 pei2 lor. But you
chose to define darwinian rather narrowly, how it applies to nature
only, while I chose to define darwinian as survival of the fittest.
That is why niu tou bu dui ma zui.
I think your definition is narrow itself ba. I can never
understand why u felt homosexual become a helpless basket case
while celibracy remain uncommented. U r just trying to confuse
everyone isn't it ?
