Continue from Speaker's Corner
-
Probably God, Adam and Eve were bestowed with Parseltongue and could communicate with snakes.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Animals were found to be talking to adam. (the snake) Animals can communicate then. In fact god talk with the snake and cursed him to crawl on his belly. So wat is the diff ?
-
You cannot use one isolated example to generalise. Moreover, the snake could very well be Satan in disguise. We can see its agenda very clearly. It is not Adam's pet cobra that is talking.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Animals were found to be talking to adam. (the snake) Animals can communicate then.So wat is the diff ? Did the bible ever claims tat the beast never talk with god ?
Are you trying to argue they did? The onus is on you to show me where then.After eating the fruit I expect major changes in the human structure and thoughts and they lose communication with animals. Maybe they communicate with god using tongues. So wat is wrong with it ?
You have not shown me that Adam can talk freely with animals, or vice versa.
Your whole point doesn't stand. Actually what is your point?
-
from hindsight, do you think we should give those "criminal genes" scientist benefit of doubt?
They can't substantiate their stand and tat is why they fail and there leave no doubt they r wrong. But for homo no conclusive conclusions r reached.
or should we be more open and wait for more conclusive findings?Indirect influence is still influence in my opinion. I never say it is not important. Which is why I believe it is hurting for families of gays.
I think u aren;t reading much
Isn't tat the same tat u r assuming gays have a family and they r totally against it ?
1. Previously I say gays r not hurting anybody
2. U say they hurt their family
3. i told u being christian hurt their family too. If u think because of hurting families then gays r wrong, then christianity is equally guilty of tis crime
4. When u try to discourage homo, perhaps u should discourage peopel from being christian as wellRead the scripture of Jews/Muslims and tell me where u derived this idea that gays have salvation.
I said the CHANCES is HIGHER for a gay than being a non-believer and worse still preach other religion. Please read the word in capital letters. CHANCES R HIGHER.Precisely, since u assume animals have no religion, then u should join them too.
Okie, so I join them and have no religion. SO wat is your point ? -
So are you saying he is right?Originally posted by stupidissmart:some say he is right and conduct studies based on his work
You are the kind who demand hard evidence for a claim. Now I demand back the same thing from you. -
You cannot use one isolated example to generalise. Moreover, the snake could very well be Satan in disguise. We can see its agenda very clearly. It is not Adam's pet cobra that is talking.
Nothing in the bible ever say tat the snake is satan. I am not generalising. But it is better than u to say animals don't communicate without showing any evidence.Are you trying to argue they did? The onus is on you to show me where then.
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
So u mean god talk to himself ?You have not shown me that Adam can talk freely with animals, or vice versa.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Your whole point doesn't stand. Actually what is your point?
Doesn't tat show snakes know wat is god too ? So eve talking to thin air again ? -
So are you saying he is right?
okie, here goes
You are the kind who demand hard evidence for a claim. Now I demand back the same thing from you.
http://www.lgbtcampus.org/resources/training/kinsey_scale.html
This scale was developed by Dr. Alfred Kinsey and his associates in the late '40s and early '50s. These results were supported in studies conducted by Masters and Johnson and other sex researchers, though some more recent studies have reported lower rates nationally, with higher rates in urban areas. These studies collectively indicate there is a broad spectrum of sexual orientations - not just heterosexual and homosexual.
The National Health and Social Life Survey (Saumann, et. al., 1994) surveyed 1749 women and 1410 men in a random sample of US adult. They found 10% of men and 9% of women reporting at least one of the following: 1) sexual desire towards the same gender, 2) sexual identity is not heterosexual, and/or 3) sexual behavior with the same gender. -
Wah rao eh, read until I
***
To understand the crux of the whole damn homosexual thingy is to know IF homosexuality is congenital or by choice. Generally, common folks believe that it came with your life (congenital), I believe, to Christians, it's more like misused of freewill to rebel against God (by choice). Regardless, till now, nobody really have the answer to this question.
This debate is pretty meaningless because two parties are standing on different side, shouting from different angles. What SIS and those who sees in his view, would agree that it is congenital and thus also a natural product of this world - something that God (whether he believes there is such a thing) creates and knows about it - thus NATURAL. 'God' cannot make something that he rejects or not know of because God is perfect.
What our Christian forumites feels is that homosexuality is unnatural because it is NOT a product made by God - somewhat a decision made by man (sin) to rebel against God. Sins, which are no difference from murder, stealing, etc. God give us the freewill to choose and gays choose the path which would sadden God, therefore, like other sins, there is a need to state a strong stand against walking into such position.
*** One speaks about Science and the other... Religion. Obviously there is a conflict.
Something to share with you people; yunhaier is slightly versed in the Art of Astrology (old wisdom passed from the ancients, which combined Science and Arts into one), AND homosexuality can be seen from a person's astrology birthchart - I have seen before. (For those interested, astrologically speaking, A person Gay often have strong affliction in 5th & 7th house, involving Venus & Uranus. No gay person are born without afflicted Uranus/Venus). Before you go wtf you are talking about... one may probably ask 'then why.'
Because Christian doesn't believe in Reincarnation - this never applies to them, thus rejected. (FYI, reincarnation and karma together doesn't mean you kill a pig you will be reborn as a pig. It's definitely not - but for this moment, short of explaination, just think reincarnation as a beginning of a new chapter and ending of an old one... and reprinting your entire personality into the new chapter)
Cruelity in love from past lives (old chapter) brought forth the affliction (into the new chapter) because such qualities/attributes/behavior, ain't evolved spiritually/emotionally/physically. E.g. If you have been possessive in love in that lifetime and NOT evolved, this carries it with you. (You will probably get some drift for the other thingy).
*** What is homosexuality related to?
Issue of Love, Relationship and Sex. If you think very carefully, this has little to do with anything else.
If you want to understand homosexuality, you got to know alot about these three disciplines. Like-wise, Science cannot explain Religion, vice vista, because these two thingy doesn't stand on similar grounds, will clash when scientific views go against theology views.
P.S: The Greek believe that lightning bolts were created when Zeus is angry - that belief cease to exist when Science came into the picture. Maybe when Man understand and grasp full knowledge in the study of love, relationship and sex, the issue of homosexuality will be clear?
Cheers -
"Give thought to the work of God. Who will make straight what he has made bent?"Originally posted by Honeybunz:Exactly.
The reason why the Churches (Catholic and most Protestant) do not allow gay marriage is because gay relationship is against nature. Not just because the bible says so.
You may think that "How about test tube babies? Isn't that unnatural too?"
My answer is : at least test tube babies serves a purpose in the society. It helps barren couple have children.
But homosexual relationship? How is a man&man relationship going to benefit the world? They can't even procreate, like what Icemoon said.
Just ask yourself, if your father married a guy twenty to thirty years ago, will there be you at all?
If you decide to go into a gay marriage today, then you will never have children of your own. Then married for what? There is no purpose for the marriage in the first place. Ppl get married to have a family together, not just be with the partner every day. If getting married is just to be with each other, then there is no need to be married in the first place. There is no reason to. And there should not be any issues against the Church not allowing gay marriages.
Ecclesiastes 7:13 -
and yet it pofilerates. it will never bee weeded out, because as they pointed out in a documentry aired on BBC last month, the factors for homosexuality lies in the way several genes are combined. Both parents might are straight, but the father carries a gene, which we will call "a" while the mother carries a gene, which we'll call gene "b". The presence of one of those genes in an individual will not result in homosexuality, but when combined during interception of a fetus, the result will be homosexuality. I think that is very strong evidence that homosexuality is intended to be passed on in any natural species, indeed, instead of being weeded out. Besides, I thought that christians do not believe in darwinian evolution?Originally posted by Icemoon:I suspect those individuals are the pawn of the game, to be weeded out according to Darwinian evolution. -
u're failing to notice that going by species, humans are mammals. Mammals come under the animal kingdom. When an animal of a species kills another animal, often is it not from another species, when the reason for the killing is for food? And do we not do that too? Your problem here is that u've failed to acknowledge that homo sapiens come under the animal kingdom, we're not seperate from it. When we say humans killing humans, thats killing within the same species, how can u compare it to killing going on between different species? If u do want to argue, I'd appreciate it if u at least paid attention to basic knowledge, and not on hoping that others would miss your ignorance.Originally posted by laoda99:I have a question..
1) If it is natural for some animals to kill other animals....and if being natural is 'right'....is it ok for humans to kill other humans also? -
ah... just as i thought. I was talking to a few Christians last night discussing this passage. What I was saying was essentially that those of u would would use the bible to argue would, for a passage which, when taken literally actually supports homosexuality, then say that it has to be taken in a metaphorical context, and when a passage when taken literally seem to speak against homosexuality, would then say that it has to be taken literally.Originally posted by Icemoon:to be able to quote is not enough.
Can you tell us the context of your quote? Who said that and why, in what circumstances?
one of them(a catholic) replied that, those who do are "simply cuitting the text to suit the argument"
and then i continue to quote this person:
"i dare say it's a shame that even i feel the chill from other christians too. people who are supposed to believe in the same cause...............until somehow, we can agree on common practices and such, one has to follow his own conscience and share a message of love as best as he knows how. to me, that message includes acceptance - including the acceptance of people who may not have the same orientation as me."
another friend, whom i was discussing this with, says this:
"in non-denomination teaching, we r moving away from all those rituals and interpret the bible as intellectual as possible the aim is to let christians to evaluate the bible on their own"
he basically says that, there is no wrong or right as to how to interpret the bible, because on WHOSE authority are we to decide if the interpretation is right or wrong? Instead, we have to let the meanings come to us thru our own self evaluation. -
there u have the sad consequences of someone whom society has forced into the closet. If socially it was acceptable and he was encouraged to explore such feelings when young and identify it, then perhaps he wouldn't have felt obliged to get married in an attempt to disguise his natural homosexuality. He would have accepted his homosexuality and have a happier time about it, instead of going into denial and feeling guilty for years and years, and having to cheat his wife about it. This wouldn't have resulted in everyone being blindsided would it? In my opinion here, everyone who suffered in this case suffered as a result of society's unacceptance of gays. If society were more accepting, the whole fracas would have been averted.Originally posted by laoda99:How does homo not affect other people around him? e.g. his family, his wife (if he is a closet gay), his friends etc....
I have come across a case of a husband, who admitted he is gay, was blackmailed by his gay lover. The husband and wife are both teachers and have two lovely kids. The whole family is deeply distressed by the incident. So how can it not affect others?
In this case it is so obvious who is at fault. Society. Why? because,
"Give thought to the work of God. Who will make straight what he has made bent?"
Ecclesiastes 7:13 -
if im the wife, i will be wondering why society has pressurised someone into marrying me. Especially now that I know he is gay and has no interest in me due to my gender, how can I go on living with him? I would wish that society has never forced him into doing something he wasn't happy doing. IF I was the wife, yes i would be distressed. Because society has pushed me into this tragedy. If society were more open, he would have no problems entering a gay relationship, and I would be able to marry a man who was truely interested in women. Now, instead, I am stuck with someone who I now know was unhappy in having to marry me, but was pressurised to, and who will remain unhappy in this relationship simply because there is no future in it for him, despite us having children. Yes I would be very very distraught. I might decide to even become a gay activist and fight for their equal human rights, showing the world myself and my poor family as an example, an example of how I became, how my husband became, how my children became victims of society!Originally posted by laoda99:He is a closet gay...
If u are the wife, will u not be distressed too? Will u be able to keep an open mind after ur husband secretly indulge in sex with other men and then got blackmail?
Luckily, the wife forgave the man....I didn't know what happened after it though....
I sure would forgive him. He is a victim of society as much as I am. -
First of all, the link that you provided do not even link to any animal researchers. Neither of them is any organisation accredited by SEAZA, ARAZPA, WAZA, IUCN or AZA etc etc... We don't read about animals on a radio website or a gay website (one or two of the links are gay website, btw... hmm). Likewise, we do not quote anything about Jesus Christ from The Straits Times newspapers. So if you want to quote, you have to quote from the correct source. Can you?Originally posted by stupidissmart:So u r a naturalist and beleiev tat being natural means god ? I can give u many examples of animals tat do find same sex partners.
Penguins can be gay
http://www.rockhawk.com/Gay%20Animals.htm
vultures can be gay
chimpanzees can be gay
rats can be gay
geese can be gay
http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/Science3.html
sheeps can be gay
http://www.narth.com/docs/sheep.html
western gulls r gay
Up to 15 percent of Western gull pairs are females. The birds woo each other with gifts of food and form bonds that last for years. They build joint nests and tend clutches of unfertilized eggs. Occasionally, one or both females will mate with males, but they always raise their young together.
Male giraffes spend most of their time in bachelor groups, where they entwine necks and rub against each other for up to an hour at a time. These "necking" sessions often culminate in mounting, and can outnumber heterosexual encounters 9 to 1.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002340835_gaycritter19m.html
U see, these animals r natural as obviously they aren't manmade. And they r gays. So gays r really natural
The last one is an article on a book whereby the author did say that it is rare for animals to be exclusively homosexual. Note the word : RARE.
Also I am asking for examples from your knowledge of male species that reject female species, like the human gays.
As for the NARTH website, which is one of the non relevant website to quote on my questions about animals, I found out something rather interesting and quite appropriate in this discussion: NARTH does not agree that Homosexuality is normal.
http://www.narth.com/docs/bornthatway.html
We would not conclude that homosexuality is a normal variant if we held to this simple definition, offered by a clinician more than fifty years ago: Normality is "that which functions in accordance with its design."
http://www.narth.com/menus/statement.html
What is "Normal"?
Fifty years ago, researcher C.D. King offered a very useful definition of "normal." The practical wisdom of that definition is still apparent. Normality, he said, is "that which functions according to its design."
As clinicians, we have witnessed the intense suffering caused by homosexuality, which many of our members see as a "failure to function according to design." Homosexuality distorts the natural bond of friendship that would naturally unite persons of the same sex. It threatens the continuity of traditional male-female marriage--a bond which is naturally anchored by the complementarity of the sexes, and has long been considered essential for the protection of children.
In males, homosexuality it is associated with poor relationship with father; difficulty individuating from mother; a sense of masculine deficit; and a persistent belief of having been different from, and misunderstood by, same-sex childhood peers. In adulthood we also see a persistent pattern of maladaptive behaviors and a documented higher level of psychiatric complaints.
In short, there are two points to note from your findings :
Animal gays are RARE.
Homosexuality is NOT normal. -
I will direct this to laoda as i see he seems to have missed it. My question to him comes from the bible itself
"Give thought to the work of God. Who will make straight what he has made bent?"
Ecclesiastes 7:13
And oh yes. Apparently it seems that even many Christians feel that homosexuality is God's creation. And I've spoken with them about Christians like u and your views. Here is the reply many of them wanted me to send to u:
"love one another as I love u.."
and some of them have these to add on:
"sacrifice, no condemnation, no guilt, acceptance, respect ...etc not speific enough?"
"to heck with those Pharisees..."
I think, I won't be asking u to do anything. Clearly anything u wish to do, if u are finally turned by this post, would be for your own benefit. If not, I would not bother anymore. If by now u still do not get it, then I will only wish u luck that perhaps one day the truth might shine upon u like God himself has whispered to you, before it is too late. -
killer boss, i suppose i should point out to u that i have personally observed turtles where the female shuns the male and tries to make love to another female.Originally posted by Honeybunz:First of all, the link that you provided do not even link to any animal researchers. Neither of them is any organisation accredited by SEAZA, ARAZPA, WAZA, IUCN or AZA etc etc... We don't read about animals on a radio website or a gay website (one or two of the links are gay website, btw... hmm). Likewise, we do not quote anything about Jesus Christ from The Straits Times newspapers. So if you want to quote, you have to quote from the correct source. Can you?
The last one is an article on a book whereby the author did say that it is rare for animals to be exclusively homosexual. Note the word : RARE.
Also I am asking for examples from your knowledge of male species that reject female species, like the human gays.
As for the NARTH website, which is one of the non relevant website to quote on my questions about animals, I found out something rather interesting and quite appropriate in this discussion: NARTH does not agree that Homosexuality is normal.
http://www.narth.com/docs/bornthatway.html
We would not conclude that homosexuality is a normal variant if we held to this simple definition, offered by a clinician more than fifty years ago: Normality is "that which functions in accordance with its design."
http://www.narth.com/menus/statement.html
What is "Normal"?
Fifty years ago, researcher C.D. King offered a very useful definition of "normal." The practical wisdom of that definition is still apparent. Normality, he said, is "that which functions according to its design."
As clinicians, we have witnessed the intense suffering caused by homosexuality, which many of our members see as a "failure to function according to design." Homosexuality distorts the natural bond of friendship that would naturally unite persons of the same sex. It threatens the continuity of traditional male-female marriage--a bond which is naturally anchored by the complementarity of the sexes, and has long been considered essential for the protection of children.
In males, homosexuality it is associated with poor relationship with father; difficulty individuating from mother; a sense of masculine deficit; and a persistent belief of having been different from, and misunderstood by, same-sex childhood peers. In adulthood we also see a persistent pattern of maladaptive behaviors and a documented higher level of psychiatric complaints.
In short, there are two points to note from your findings :
Animal gays are RARE.
Homosexuality is NOT normal.
also, a christian friend pointed out to me, that a researcher received a nobel prize for documenting homosexuality in mallard ducks. actually, make that necrophilic homosexuality in that duck. but yea.
i do think that your view that homosexuality arises from a poor relationship with the father comes from earlier research, with more inaccuracies. Freud is well, fairly discredited nowadays, n many such research based on his ideas are being mooted. -
If they don't want it, it is nothing wrong isn't it ? U can't force a couple to have children because of your belief
Nobody force them. They "will" want. Just like the way a guy and a girl in love wanting to get married, a loving husband and wife will want to have a kid together.Trust me, i have reach and gone beyond tat stage
If you have passed that stage and not experiencing wanting to have your own offspring with the partner, then you have to relook into the relationship (assuming that you are not lying just to win this argument. Just a friendly advice. Don't need to tell me your decision, since it is your relationship). -
No, I didn't say it is an obligation.Originally posted by F Bunta:I disagree with you, procreation is never an obligation. Couples decide to have children because they love children, and not because it is their duty. And it is perfectly ok for someone to have children too.
I am saying that it is natural for a loving married couple to want to have children together. They WILL NOT make the decision just because they like children (eg. "Oh.. darling. See that baby. So cute! Shall we have a baby?")
Instead, they will see the child as the fruit of their love. -
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.htmlOriginally posted by stupidissmart:Then my argument to u is tat sexuality is a range and not just black or white. It do have mechanism to pass down to future generations. According to many experts, they find tat homo can be due to genes. R u gonna say they r wrong ? Impotency also violates the first principle yet there is still people who r impotent. Doesn't tat show we r still undergoing evolution and flaws still surfaced ?
Is There a "Gay Gene"?
Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is  from the moment of conception.
The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?
No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public. -
Originally posted by Honeybunz:
the article you have quoted is from Narth..
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
[b]Is There a "Gay Gene"?
Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is  from the moment of conception.
The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?
No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
[/b]
Narth is a proponent for the "change orientation" therapy.. but if u look at the bigger psychological/psychiatry organisation in US.. you will realise that they are proposing very different things..
even if we are to take Narth's position.. for the intricate balance between bioligical, social, and psychological contribution, did Narth give a good brief on how much each component contributed? and how to "change" one's orientation? -
Originally posted by Honeybunz:
one website out of how many? and what evidence do they offer to prove that there is no evidence?
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
[b]Is There a "Gay Gene"?
Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is  from the moment of conception.
The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?
No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
[/b] -
I think it is not about lack of evidence but how strong the evidence?Originally posted by HENG@:one website out of how many? and what evidence do they offer to prove that there is no evidence?
I don't want to be another criminal gene believer. -
if exclusive homosexuality is rare in nature,does it mean its not natural at all?
Now u see,that rebuttal to the info was just stupid.On another note,if exclusive homsosexuality is rare it could account why gays are still a minority, no?
Normal or not,its is just a relative, and dont go around taking another person view of abnormal and enforce it on the whole lot of us.
Sure you may find it not normal to you, maybe even disgusting, but i dont think exclusive gays find heterosexuality particulary tasteful either, dont confuse your own preferences and the global opinion on what's right and what's wrong (if there is one anyway). -
if exclusive homosexuality is rare in nature,does it mean its not natural at all?
Now u see,that rebuttal to the info was just stupid.On another note,if exclusive homsosexuality is rare it could account why gays are still a minority, no?
Normal or not,its is just a relative, and dont go around taking another person view of abnormal and enforce it on the whole lot of us.
Sure you may find it not normal to you, maybe even disgusting, but i dont think exclusive gays find heterosexuality particulary tasteful either, dont confuse your own preferences and the global opinion on what's right and what's wrong (if there is one anyway). -
Common belief is that it is a combination of both "nature n nurture",Genetics definitely play a part in a person's sexuality and so does his development.