Homosexual

last SG · 2004-05-01T04:04:02+00:00

maybe? because things would just get more expensive to solve the “problem” of all that extra money

loudmonkey SG

And furthermore, may I add that questions like "are homosexuals abnormal" are irrelevant, since i have explained previously that norms always change.

Shall we close the topic and move on? Very Happy

PRP SG

My stand is the same as Accela's view.

I wish more surfers would express the same stand so that CX wouldn't think i am the only person holding this stand and say i am bigoted.

CX SG

u are a bigot not because u disagree with homosexuality... [email protected] doesn't go out of his way to agree with homosexuality as well... and he acknowledges that he is "homophobic"... and uncomfortable in their presence.

but i do not call [email protected] a bigot and a moron because he understands the complexities of the situation: that though he disagrees, it is rather silly to ask "right / wrong" questions about it.

u are a bigot and a moron because u ask silly questions and insist over 6, 7 pages that pple prove that u're an idiot.

u are a bigot and a moron because u insist that everything falls into your morose categories of "right / wrong" and refuse to see it when pple tell u that the situation is more complex than that.

you are a bigot and a moron beause your opening statement already states that u find homosexuality "abnormal and unnatural" when we keep telling u that both these labels are relative and artificial. u have no business judging pple that way.

PRP SG

Loudmonkey,
U put a very comprehensive argument on the topic.

I don't judge whether homo is right or wrong base on social convention.It is because the view of the majority can be wrong.I judge it acording to scientific principles.

I disagree with one of your conclusion that better notto judge whether homo is right or not becuase it is more a question of personal choice.

CX,
U seem angry with my viewpoint. Either homo is right or wrong.There are 2 choices. I take the stand that it is wrong while u take the stand it is right/no right or wrong.If u think homo is right,u can do what u like.I can't stop u.Why worry what other ppl say it is wrong?I say it is wrong,some ppl support me and some don't.This is the fact of life.Using the word 'moron' in this discussion is unnecessary.

PRP SG

Some surfers say there is no right or wrong about homo.Actually they don't know rather than 'no right or wrong'.They never think hard enuf on this matter.

They say sexuality is like choosing between apple or durian.So there is no right or wrong.What happen if homo is a rotten apple?Homosex is indeed wrong and so it is a 'rotten apple'.

It is wrong because it is inmoral & against nature,so are sex with animals and children.

As i have use the analogy: If one eats from his mouth,he is right.If one eats from his anus,he is wrong.Why wrong?The answer is very obvious,isn't it?

CX,
If u don't like my viewpoint,i think u can don't read this topic.Wouldn't u?

loudmonkey SG

Point taken, PRP.

Well it seems to me that u have to provide the scientific principles. I dont know if it is true that people are born gay because of some genetic deficiency or fault. U need to provide the information and let readers decide.

And until that information is provided, I am still of the opinion that gay people become gay because of external environmental influences. It is because of these influences which made them decide to be gay in the end, which is obviously a personal decision of choice.

Happy researching! Smile

CX SG

Originally posted by PRP:
Some surfers say there is no right or wrong about homo.Actually they don't know rather than 'no right or wrong'.They never think hard enuf on this matter.

ever occured to u that it is YOU who had not thought hard and read deep enough on the matter?

They say sexuality is like choosing between apple or durian.So there is no right or wrong.What happen if homo is a rotten apple?Homosex is indeed wrong and so it is a 'rotten apple'.

the only thing rotten i see is the quality of your bigoted reasoning.

It is wrong because it is inmoral & against nature,so are sex with animals and children.

totally different matters but u can go screw a moose for all i care... i might not agree with beastiality, but i just might respect your choice.

As i have use the analogy: If one eats from his mouth,he is right.If one eats from his anus,he is wrong.Why wrong?The answer is very obvious,isn't it?

and why does homosexuality = anal sex? is that 100% true? does that not show just how ignorant and twisted u are?

in another way of looking at it, isn't it both possible to breathe through BOTH your nose AND your mouth?

if the objective is just ejaculation, there are more than one orifice in the human anatomy that can fulfil the function.

so is masturbation unnatural and abnormal as well?

and isn't it bizarre that certain g-spots and nerve endings occur close to the anal passage? if they were never meant to be stimulated, then why are they there???

there is nothing "scientific" about your view... is reproduction the only function of fornication? if so, then why doesn't humans mate only at certain fixed mating seasons? since fornication = reproduction, we shouldn't be having sex any time we can and want right?

why is it possible to map the female ovulating cycle to have sex without impregnation? why do we even NEED orgasms (or multiple orgasms in females) ? since reproduction is SUPPOSED to be a natural drive in living things and we should all do it without much encouragements right? so why should we even enjoy it???

hmmm... and while we're on it, WHY do only female possess the ability for multiple orgasms? does that not suggest that monogamy is "unscientific" as well?

does it not suggest that a female was MEANT and INTENDED to mate with several males to ensure impregnation, since they can keep going consecutively while a man is wiped out for at least a short while after ejaculation?

u wanna take sexuality "scientifically " ? explain this then.

if u cannot even properly explain hetrosexual behavior, i suggest u leave homosexuality alone.

CX,
If u don't like my viewpoint,i think u can don't read this topic.Wouldn't u?

u don't like MY viewpoints too... why don't u just not reply?

"bigot" and "moron" in your case, isn't even an insult anymore... its an observation.

CX SG

u're waiting for proof? haha... good luck... join the queue... Mr. Green

i thought that your take on how different religion viewed sexuality quite interesting. nice to see pple think on different levels about complex issues.

[email protected] SG

buddy, talking to you is like talking to a damned brick wall, except maybe u'd get an echo out of a brick wall. Homo is NOT EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG. THERE IS NO 2 CHOICES. ITS ONE DAMN BIG GREY AREA. HOW THE HELL DO U WANT US TO EXPLAIN THAT BEFORE U CAN GET THAT INTO YOUR NARROW MIND?

CX SG

Mr. Green u stil trying too?

i think he's just trying to bore us into agreeing with him...

PRP SG

Loudmonkey,
I have the same opinion with u that homo is due to environmental factor. But many ppl think that they are born like that.If they are born like that,nothing can be done to change it.So the homo choose to be homo.I say they make a wrong choice.

PRP SG

CX,
By calling me moron,this shows u are BANKRUPT intellectually.
U can talk a lot but don't have any valid point.I leave it to the readers themselves to judge whether my msg below is right.

[email protected] SG

forget it. as long as u cannot even understand a simple fact of life, that is, nothing is always black n white, u are what he says u are.

CX SG

by refusing to address my points, u show yourself to be the intellectual non-entity that u have always been.

i may be curt, sarcastic and cynical now, but i can be nice if i want to... YOU however, will always be shallow and stupid.

loudmonkey SG

Many pple THINK they are born like that: do they have any medical evidence to prove their claim? IMO, I do not think they are born to become homos later in life. Of course, if they have evidence, I will believe them. If the lesbians and gays want to claim this without showing evidence, I will laugh and think that they dont know what they are talking about.

So the homo choose to be homo.

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?

[quote]I say they make a wrong choice.I dont agree with you, but I respect your opinion.

Anyway, it is not for us to judge them, since we are not les/gay. Be it right or wrong, they must be prepared to take in the social consequences of making that choice.
They need to decide themselves if it is in their best interest to be homo or not, so only they can decide if it was a wrong or right choice.

[/quote][/b]

CX SG

Originally posted by loudmonkey:
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?

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?

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.

loudmonkey SG

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.

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)

well I am not religious...but religion is a con-job?? erh....no comment. Smile

CX SG

Originally posted by loudmonkey:
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...".

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 Mr. Green

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.

loudmonkey SG

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.

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...

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.

PRP SG

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?

« Previous Page Next Page »