Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

What Problems Will The New Pope Face?

Featured Replies

^

I'd venture to say the silent majority of folks throughout the world regard marriage between a man and a women to be the 'natural' state of affairs. How else can future populations exist. Why should it be considered a 'hate' crime to be against homosexual marrige? They already have their civil unions - what else but the continuning pushing the enevelope of moral rectitude is their agenda?

Well, you have already received many replies. Let me just add that humans are not the only species who have a certain percentage of a gay population, there are many. Penguins and swans come to mind right away, but I recently read about more than one hundred species. Yes, these are species who do not make conscious decisions about "life styles", they just act the way they feel.

So it must be "natural", don't you think?

Yes, well, 'civilized' man with a brain is subject to society's regard to what is acceptable behavior and what is not. We are not animals that simply do what they feel is right and natural so that's why we have laws against beastality and such. We're not all Debbie Boone who crooned: "Why is it so wrong when it feels so right" wink.png

we-are-liberals.jpg

  • Replies 176
  • Views 982
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

No one is arguing that homosexuality is not natural. In my opinion, it is - for a very small percentage of the population. The argument is about changing the traditional definition of marriage from one man and one woman, rather than simply having civil partnerships cover other types of unions.

Yes, they are. I am.

Maybe in your opinion it is 'natural' for a small minority, but to me it is a perversion of God's design for the universe.

Also a perversion of Mother Nature if you do not accept God. The basic purpose of sexual union is to procreate and thus produce the next generation of bugs, dogs, ants, whales, human beings, what-have-you.

For homosexuals this is not possible, it is perverting the purpose of the act to being solely an indulgence for one or both the participants, exaxctly the same as paedophilia or bestiality.

  • Popular Post

...

For homosexuals this is not possible, it is perverting the purpose of the act to being solely an indulgence for one or both the participants, exaxctly the same as paedophilia or bestiality.

A classic example of religion inspired hateful intolerance.

  • Author

No one is arguing that homosexuality is not natural. In my opinion, it is - for a very small percentage of the population. The argument is about changing the traditional definition of marriage from one man and one woman, rather than simply having civil partnerships cover other types of unions.

Yes, they are. I am.

Maybe in your opinion it is 'natural' for a small minority, but to me it is a perversion of God's design for the universe.

Also a perversion of Mother Nature if you do not accept God. The basic purpose of sexual union is to procreate and thus produce the next generation of bugs, dogs, ants, whales, human beings, what-have-you.

For homosexuals this is not possible, it is perverting the purpose of the act to being solely an indulgence for one or both the participants, exaxctly the same as paedophilia or bestiality.

Oh dear, and I wanted to get back to the problems the Pope is facing.

Yes, HB, the basic purpose of sexual union is to procreate, but by God's grace we are allowed to take pleasure in the act. Nobody argues that the infertile and those past child-bearing may not take pleasure in sexual union.

By God's grace also, a small percentage of every generation takes its sexual pleasure with its own sex, and this is frowned on by the puritanical (there are those in the Catholic Church too). A small percentage, too, is left-handed; the Latin word for left-handed is 'sinister', which tells its own story. Satanism is known as the Left-hand Path.

Fortunately the left-handed are no longer stigmatized (except perhaps in the Arab world, but that's a matter of custom). Just like lefthandedness, being gay is something natural for those of us who happen to be made that way. We didn't choose it (as people choose deviance or perversion); more and more of us, thank God, accept we are as we are, and are no longer abused by the straight majority trying to change our ways.

I could go on for rather a long time on this subject, but I think that's enough. Just that I'm rather saddened by your post, HB.

...

For homosexuals this is not possible, it is perverting the purpose of the act to being solely an indulgence for one or both the participants, exaxctly the same as paedophilia or bestiality.

A classic example of religion inspired hateful intolerance.
But a fair reflection of the god of the Bible. A rather nasty piece of work by all accounts.

No one is arguing that homosexuality is not natural. In my opinion, it is - for a very small percentage of the population. The argument is about changing the traditional definition of marriage from one man and one woman, rather than simply having civil partnerships cover other types of unions.

Yes, they are. I am.

Maybe in your opinion it is 'natural' for a small minority, but to me it is a perversion of God's design for the universe.

Also a perversion of Mother Nature if you do not accept God. The basic purpose of sexual union is to procreate and thus produce the next generation of bugs, dogs, ants, whales, human beings, what-have-you.

For homosexuals this is not possible, it is perverting the purpose of the act to being solely an indulgence for one or both the participants, exaxctly the same as paedophilia or bestiality.

cheesy.gifcheesy.gifcheesy.gif

Where have you been for the last decade, I wonder.

cheesy.gifcheesy.gifcheesy.gif

Where have you been for the last decade, I wonder.

Lots of people still think like that, and even worse. I actually appreciate it when people who are anti-gay are open and honest about it. At least you know where they stand -- simpler to fight against, simpler to expose because they've done all the work doing that THEMSELVES.

Much easier to deal with than people who pose as being tolerant while advocating policies of continued oppression and denial of civil rights. Such people drive me batty. Take a side! It's better that way.

cheesy.gifcheesy.gifcheesy.gif

Where have you been for the last decade, I wonder.

Lots of people still think like that, and even worse. I actually appreciate it when people who are anti-gay are open and honest about it. At least you know where they stand -- simpler to fight against, simpler to expose because they've done all the work doing that THEMSELVES.

Much easier to deal with than people who pose as being tolerant while advocating policies of continued oppression and denial of civil rights. Such people drive me batty. Take a side! It's better that way.

You have a point there about knowing where they stand. However, I am still surprised that these people post on modern webboards and expect to be taken seriously.

To get firmly back on topic. The issue or rather non issue of homosexuality could well be something that the Pope will have to deal with during his tenure as Christ's vicar on Earth. Cultural (?) bigotry has all but evaporated due to the acquisition of knowledge which leaves objections that still remain in the hands of theists. Not all theists but you can bet your bottom dollar that anyone who objects is almost certain to be a theist.

The same tired old arguments such as bestiality (for some reason theists equate marrage with having sex with an animal) were used against marrying people of African decent and similarly fallacious arguments were used against women being able to vote and ending slavery.

We no longer put people to death for working on a Sunday: Exodus 35:2

We no longer put people to death for cutting their hair: Lev. 19:27

We no longer stone people to death for planting 2 different crops in the same field or wearing cloth made from 2 types of thread or using majic words: Lev. 24:10-16

If you want to work on a Sunday then YOU can, if you don't want to work on a Sunday then YOU can also do that also. One would think that this freedom would make theists happy but it doesn't they wont be happy until you do the same which is in direct contradiction to freedom.

Theists will not be happy playing with their own toys unless everyone else is playing with them to. This brings me back to homosexual marrage... If you don't like homosexual marrage then don't have one. The very essence of freedom.

No one is arguing that homosexuality is not natural. In my opinion, it is - for a very small percentage of the population. The argument is about changing the traditional definition of marriage from one man and one woman, rather than simply having civil partnerships cover other types of unions.

Yes, they are. I am.

Maybe in your opinion it is 'natural' for a small minority, but to me it is a perversion of God's design for the universe.

Also a perversion of Mother Nature if you do not accept God. The basic purpose of sexual union is to procreate and thus produce the next generation of bugs, dogs, ants, whales, human beings, what-have-you.

For homosexuals this is not possible, it is perverting the purpose of the act to being solely an indulgence for one or both the participants, exaxctly the same as paedophilia or bestiality.

cheesy.gifcheesy.gifcheesy.gif

Where have you been for the last decade, I wonder.

I actually disagree with HB, as I do believe it is "natural" for many gays to have this proclivity from birth. It is also "against nature" in that it doesn't lead to species sustainability. I can't explain why a large percentage of gay men come from families with overbearing mothers or why a large percentage of lesbian women come from families with abusive fathers or husbands. I accept that's just the way it is. I also accept that these people so afflicted are free to engage in whatever behaviour between themselves that they like, so long as it doesn't harm others.

I do not accept that it is a lifestyle that leads to nuclear family formation however , which IMO is in the very best interests of children, including gay children BTW. Therefore I don't agree with measures that put gay marriage and gay adoption on the same footing with heterosexual marriage and adoption. It is the child's rights I'm thinking of and it is with child's rights in mind that the institution of civil marriage and familial tax benefits was created.

Homo Sapiens have been on this earth about 200k-250k years. Their evolution has come strictly from heterosexual pairings. I have to laugh and think the authors foolish when I see comments on this subject like "the latest poll shows" and "where have you been the last decade".

It is also "against nature" in that it doesn't lead to species sustainability.

Did you not do evolution at school?

Gay is not a lifestyle.

Its a sexual orientation and for some people a social identity group.

But it's not like bowling or gardening.

This isn't the 1950's anymore!

Spouting old tired myths that are entirely obsolete. It would be funny if it wasn't so sickening as this kind of old style debunked garbage is still used to deny gay people equal civil rights under CIVIL laws.

It turns out that parents of gay men are no better or worse than those of heterosexuals.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200804/finding-the-switch

It is so true. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married! Simples.

ymore!

Spouting old tired myths that are entirely obsolete. It would be funny if it wasn't so sickening as this kind of old style debunked garbage is still used to deny gay people equal civil rights under CIVIL laws.

100% JT

Why do arguments which have been shown to be in error keep coming up?

Gay is not a lifestyle.

Its a sexual orientation and for some people a social identity group.

But it's not like bowling or gardening.

This isn't the 1950's anymore!

Spouting old tired myths that are entirely obsolete. It would be funny if it wasn't so sickening as this kind of old style debunked garbage is still used to deny gay people equal civil rights under CIVIL laws.

It turns out that parents of gay men are no better or worse than those of heterosexuals.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200804/finding-the-switch

It is so true. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married! Simples.

I didn't say gay was a lifestyle. I said I thought many gays, I don't know what percentage, have this proclivity from birth. That is not a lifestyle, that is a life. Familial formation for gays IS a lifestyle and that is what I was referring to. It is a choice. Furthermore it is apparent it is a choice for the benefit of the principals rather than the children.

Furthermore it is apparent it is a choice for the benefit of the principals rather than the children.

That is a bigoted and loaded assertion. Who are you to look into the souls of every gay person with children or who wishes to have a family with children? Are you God? Perhaps you should be in charge of a moral test for ALL prospective parents. Has it occurred to you how many straight people have children for "selfish" reasons? Yes according to your standard, only SAINTLY people should be allowed to have families with children. This demonization of gay people, this pushing us out of the human family, is quite simply ... A SHANDA. This apparently is something you share with Papa F. He also said gays having children is an act of discrimination against the children. Argentine president Kirchner called that MEDIEVAL thinking. I think Kirchner is right. I get it devout Catholics think they are doing "God's" work but unless you're in a THEOCRACY, that is irrelevant for civil law and civil rights for minorities in societies.

Furthermore it is apparent it is a choice for the benefit of the principals rather than the children.

That is a bigoted and loaded assertion. Who are you to look into the souls of every gay person with children or who wishes to have a family with children? Are you God? Perhaps you should be in charge of a moral test for ALL prospective parents. Has it occurred to you how many straight people have children for "selfish" reasons? Yes according to your standard, only SAINTLY people should be allowed to have families with children. This demonization of gay people, this pushing us out of the human family, is quite simply ... A SHANDA. This apparently is something you share with Papa F. He also said gays having children is an act of discrimination against the children. Argentine president Kirchner called that MEDIEVAL thinking. I think Kirchner is right. I get it devout Catholics think they are doing "God's" work but unless you're in a THEOCRACY, that is irrelevant for civil law and civil rights for minorities in societies.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about morals, I'm talking about nature. The same nature gay people claim that gives them civil rights, which I agree with. And please don't come back with the inter-racial thing either. That has zero bearing on procreation. Also, nvoking a corrupt, failed, latter day Peronista doesn't make your claims more credible I assure you. And BTW I am not a devout Catholic.

I think a Shanda is only directed at Jewish persons, which I know you are, but my comments weren't.

You insist on making gay people an OTHER. I think it is bloody clear what I am talking about. No need to repeat. Happily, in many countries including Argentina and now the USA, voices like yours are LOSING.

BTW, what I find hilarious about your posts is your seeming insistence on your self image of being tolerant while at the same time spouting every tired discredited anti-gay stereotype in the book

You insist on making gay people an OTHER. I think it is bloody clear what I am talking about. No need to repeat. Happily, in many countries including Argentina and now the USA, voices like yours are LOSING.

BTW, what I find hilarious about your posts is your seeming insistence on your self image of being tolerant while at the same time spouting every tired discredited anti-gay stereotype in the book

Feel free to give some examples of my intolerance. I love you man!

I'm talking about nature.

Knowing something about it would be an advantage.

Heterosexual couples giving birth to gay children is unnatural. How devoid of reason is that!

I'm talking about nature.

Knowing something about it would be an advantage.

School me. I'm standing by.

I'm talking about nature.

Knowing something about it would be an advantage.

School me. I'm standing by.

Sure. Does homosexuality exist within nature or outside of it.

I'm talking about nature.

Knowing something about it would be an advantage.

School me. I'm standing by.

Sure. Does homosexuality exist within nature or outside of it.

So, I'm schooling you. Ok, within. That is if one accepts the theory it is based on genetics and for the sake of argument I would concede that though it is yet to be proven.

So, I'm schooling you. Ok, within. That is if one accepts the theory it is based on genetics and for the sake of argument I would concede that though it is yet to be proven.

Interesting edit from "So, I'm schooling you. Ok, within."

Your addition suggests nature is dependent on genetics which is rather odd.

If homosexuality exists within nature then by definition it has to be natural.

So, I'm schooling you. Ok, within. That is if one accepts the theory it is based on genetics and for the sake of argument I would concede that though it is yet to be proven.

Interesting edit from "So, I'm schooling you. Ok, within."

Your addition suggests nature is dependent on genetics which is rather odd.

If homosexuality exists within nature then by definition it has to be natural.

I concede that , go on. BTW, will we be doing this a sentence at a time?

So, I'm schooling you. Ok, within. That is if one accepts the theory it is based on genetics and for the sake of argument I would concede that though it is yet to be proven.

Interesting edit from "So, I'm schooling you. Ok, within."

Your addition suggests nature is dependent on genetics which is rather odd.

If homosexuality exists within nature then by definition it has to be natural.

I concede that , go on. BTW, will we be doing this a sentence at a time?

Concede lol. 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of your opinion on it.

Homosexuality is natural regardless of your opinion too.

So, I'm schooling you. Ok, within. That is if one accepts the theory it is based on genetics and for the sake of argument I would concede that though it is yet to be proven.

Interesting edit from "So, I'm schooling you. Ok, within."

Your addition suggests nature is dependent on genetics which is rather odd.

If homosexuality exists within nature then by definition it has to be natural.

I concede that , go on. BTW, will we be doing this a sentence at a time?

Concede lol. 2 + 2 = 4 regardless of your opinion on it.

Homosexuality is natural regardless of your opinion too.

You are stating my opinion. When does the lesson start?

You are stating my opinion. When does the lesson start?

What you say now does not fit with....

Familial formation for gays IS a lifestyle and that is what I was referring to. It is a choice. Furthermore it is apparent it is a choice for the benefit of the principals rather than the children.

You are stating my opinion. When does the lesson start?

What you say now does not fit with....

>Familial formation for gays IS a lifestyle and that is what I was referring to. It is a choice. Furthermore it is apparent it is a choice for the benefit of the principals rather than the children.

Ah, you may have missed a post or two in followup. back on ignore.

back on ignore.

Back? lol. Run away why don't you.

Edit to add. I have no idea if you are a theist or not but I would put money on you being one.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.